Media Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 12th December 2023
(1 year ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Media Act 2024 View all Media Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2023 - (12 Dec 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members that Hansard colleagues will be very grateful indeed if you email your speaking notes to them. I remind everyone to please switch their devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Clause 48
Regulation of radio selection services
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 42, in clause 48, page 88, line 17, at end insert—
“(b) an in-car entertainment system.”
This amendment and Amendments 43 and 44 would expand the scope of the definition of a “radio selection service” to include non-voice activated in-car entertainment systems.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 43, in clause 48, page 88, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) For the purposes of this Part, “in-car entertainment system” means any equipment designed or adapted for use in a motor vehicle that enables, or among other things enables, a user of the equipment to use it to give instructions to a radio selection service, whether by giving spoken commands that are recorded by the equipment or otherwise.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 42.
Amendment 44, in clause 48, page 94, line 13, leave out from “giving” to the end and insert
“instructions to the service (whether by spoken commands that are recorded by equipment connected to the internet or otherwise)”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 42.
Kirsty Blackman
It is a pleasure to take part in this Committee stage of the Media Bill today. I will not talk for too long on these amendments, which I tabled after conversations, particularly with Radiocentre, about how in-car entertainment systems work. These days, the reality is that an awful lot of people are using those in-car systems by navigating through screens or pressing on their mobile phone, in advance of actually driving the car. I myself tend to use the buttons on my screen when I am listening to stuff in the car.
Nine out of 10 UK adults—a significant proportion—listen to commercial radio or BBC radio every week. That is where a massive number of people get their local news, hear updates on what is going on, and listen to all sorts of genres of music. It is incredibly important for people. Even though in a lot of places we are moving away from cars and taking more public transport, people who use cars generally have some sort of sound on when they are driving. An awful lot of the time that is either commercial radio or BBC radio.
Commercial radio is already highly regulated. The adverts available on commercial radio that can be heard over DAB, for example, are checked. They have to meet high standards, not have false claims in them, and be pre-checked in advance of being broadcast. Radio stations have to ensure that they cover certain genres, although that is set to change as a consequence of this Bill. That makes a huge amount of sense, given the increase in the availability of services and the fact that there are not just one or two radio stations available to listen to and get signal for on AM or FM. There is the whole gamut of digital or internet radio.
We spoke last week about resilience and public reliance on hearing public sector broadcasts. The Minister himself made the point that radio is a good way for people to get updates on things happening in the local area, particularly if there is some sort of emergency. When we were talking about terrestrial television, the Minister made that point clear, and I absolutely agree with him. In the event that there is flooding in a local area, people often tune in to their local stations. In Aberdeen, that is Northsound 1, Original 106, or shmuFM—Station House Media Unit, an excellent community-run radio station. Those are all things people will use to they increase their resilience and ensure that they are aware of any emergencies.
To ensure that this is future-proofed and that the Bill makes sense and works in the way that the Government intend, I have tabled the amendments 42, 43 and 44 in relation to radio selection services, specifically to include non-voice-activated in-car entertainment systems. Not all cars rely on voice activation, and lots of people do not like voice activation; even though 53% of people now have smart speakers, a proportion are still not keen. As someone pointed out to me recently, the level of tolerance in relation to these things is pretty low. When someone says, “Alexa, please could you do this,” and it does not do it, they get frustrated fairly quickly, because the technology does not necessarily behave itself. For various reasons, some people choose to use the physical buttons or the screen selection services. Radiocentre and I believe that those people should also get the service that they are looking for, and that when they press those buttons in the car, they should get whichever radio station they want on whichever player they are looking for. It is important, therefore, that the Government consider this matter and whether something else could be done, particularly in this clause, to ensure that in-car entertainment systems are accessible to the public; to ensure that they are able to find the BBC, or BBC iPlayer if they are streaming through an internet service; and to ensure that they are able to listen to digital radio and to Northsound, if that is what they want to listen to on that morning.
I hope Minister will be able to give me a significant degree of comfort on this and convince me that this is something that the Government are considering and taking account of, something that they recognise is important and that they do expect people to be able to find the radio stations they want.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
A not insignificant amount of listening—around a quarter of all radio listening—still takes place in the car, so it is a really important area for voice activation. It is really important that the Government look closely at this.
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree. It is really important for voice activation. It is also really important for physical activation as well in terms of on-screen navigation, because of that massively high proportion of listening that takes place in the car.
For an awful lot of people, that is the only way that they hear news. They are not listening to the radio to hear news; they are listening to the radio to hear music, but they catch news bulletins on commercial radio. By the way, commercial radio stations put an awful lot of time, effort and journalism hours into ensuring that they have accurate news bulletins and that they are providing updates. For a significant proportion of people, that is the only form of news that they hear, and they hear international and national news as well as local news on those services. Therefore, it is important not just from an entertainment point of view, but from a resilience and an information point of view.
We have talked already about democracy and access to democracy and democratic services. Some people only get those updates from the radio; they only know that a general election has been called because local radio has told them. [Interruption.] Don’t worry, a general election has not been called this morning—I am sure that Government Members would know before I did, anyway. [Interruption.] I am sure that some Government Members would know before I did, anyway.
I would like the Minister to be very clear that he attaches importance to radio and to commercial radio and that he understands the ways that people use it. I would also like him to commit to giving some consideration to how this Bill could be future-proofed to ensure that those screen and button navigations also allow people to get the service that they want and that they do not have to use voice activation. If he can give me that reassurance, I may not push the amendments to a vote.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
As I mentioned on Second Reading, part 6 is one of the most contentious parts of the Media Bill. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee picked up on it immediately and published a dedicated report on the radio clauses prior to its report on the Bill more broadly. The report highlighted issues with the drafting as well as with the content, which I will speak about in more detail as we debate the various aspects of, and additions to, this part. It also expressed full support for the inclusion of measures intended to protect our treasured radio services. I wanted to mention that at the beginning of my remarks.
I have been extremely supportive of radio and the principles of inclusion, but I know that platforms are extremely concerned. A few weeks ago, I hosted a roundtable with radio services and platforms and we had a really constructive discussion about the Bill. It was one of the first times that stakeholders had been invited together to have a discussion, albeit a virtual one. During the discussion, it was clear that platforms were largely happier, albeit to varying degrees, with the latest version of the Bill compared with the draft. That is to the credit of the Committee and the Department, which took seriously the matter of rectifying some of the problems with the Bill while maintaining a commitment to the importance of the part and radio as a whole. I believe the Bill is all the better for it. We are now on a much better footing for discussing some of the remaining issues in the clause. We can focus on the nuances, rather than discussing whether our radio services should be protected.
I therefore approach the amendments today keeping in mind the fact that a good balance has been struck. My overwhelming priority is to ensure that radio services get the protections they have been waiting for. I do not wish to cause any major further disruption to a part of the Bill that has been fine-tuned, to the benefit of both radio and platforms.
To address amendments 42 to 44 specifically, as with the smart speakers explicitly included in the Bill, car entertainment systems are a platform that have the potential to make it hard for users to find radio services. Some sophisticated car entertainment systems, for example, have the ability to preference their own content over radio services, to force users to swipe through pages of options to find their favourite radio station, or indeed to refuse to offer radio, full stop. Radiocentre claims that some recent models of Tesla cars do not have a broadcast radio at all, and though it is theoretically possible to stream radio through an interface on such models, no protections are in place to ensure that that will remain the case in a genuinely accessible and convenient way.
That issue is only more worrying when coupled with the reality that listening via car entertainment systems is on the rise, in particular among younger people. Ofcom reports that 9% of people listen to a streaming service via an in-car system, rising to 19% in the 16-to-24 age group. I therefore ask the Minister why such car systems were not considered for inclusion in the initial definition in the Bill alongside smart speakers. The CMS Committee report said that
“the Government may have overestimated the extent to which listeners are easily able to find their preferred stations in in-car systems.”
I agree with that statement and with the Committee’s recommendation to the Minister and Ofcom that they keep the issue under “close review”.
The Government agreed to that in their response to the Committee report, so how do they actively plan to do it? At what threshold will they consider extending the regime to cars or to any other device that poses similar problems? While I am in favour of exploring the inclusion of car entertainment systems, given the scope in the Bill to extend the regime, I think it is important that any extension is properly consulted on; in particular, car manufacturers themselves will need to be consulted.
Similar to the prominence regime for public service broadcasters, , it is right the Bill should be future-proofed so that new technologies can be accounted for, not just with cars, but further into the future. I hope that the Minister will consider that and will explain with clarity how we can be sure the Bill does enough to protect radio not just in today’s world, but in the years to come.
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)
I apologise to the Committee for croaking a little. I also declare that on Sunday I attended the Jingle Bell ball with Capital Radio, which is organised by Global Media. In between some excellent performances, we talked briefly about the Media Bill.
The hon. Member for Barnsley East described part 6 of the Bill as perhaps one of the more contentious ones, although in fact I think that there is widespread agreement in Committee. On Thursday, we spoke about the importance of radio and how it continues to achieve a significant proportion of listening, despite having been written off a number of times in the past years. Part 6 of the Bill relates to the recognition that the way in which people access radio is changing. We spoke for a bit of time about updating the regime governing broadcast television to take account of the move to digital so, similarly, this part of the Bill is concerned with the fact that a growing proportion of radio listening is done through smart speakers.
The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North relates to cars in particular, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South pointed out, listening to the radio in cars represents a significant proportion of radio listening. Research carried out in 2021 by WorldDAB Forum, which is the international standards and co-ordination body for digital radio, showed that more than 90% of prospective car buyers across a range of international markets say that a broadcast radio tuner should be standard equipment in every car. Research has also found that 82% of potential car buyers say they would be less likely to buy or lease a vehicle that is not equipped with a built-in radio tuner. Consumer demand for new cars to have a radio installed as standard remains powerful.
Kirsty Blackman
I am not aware that I have ever bought a new car, but if I were to, I would probably not think to ask, “Does it have a radio?” I would just assume that it would have a radio, and then I would buy the car and be utterly shocked if I did not have access to radio. Maybe a kind of future-proofing, or at least leaning on the car manufacturers to say, “Radio is really important. Please could you include this?” would be a key way to go forward here.
Sir John Whittingdale
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady about encouraging manufacturers to include a radio. We would be very happy to do that. At the moment, it is almost unheard of not to include a radio—indeed, we encouraged manufacturers to install DAB sets. Older cars had traditional analogue sets, but in 2020 the Government actually brought in regulations to ensure that all radios installed in cars had a DAB tuner. That was a big step along the road to switching radio listening from analogue to digital, and the result now is that virtually all new cars in the UK have a DAB tuner installed, which allows the receipt of a large range of radio stations on the road. As noted by the digital radio and audio review carried out by the Department in 2021, audio and entertainment systems in cars are evolving rapidly, giving opportunities for car manufacturers to develop partnerships to provide or support other types of audio services, whether that is Bluetooth connectivity to connect mobile phones, or integrated systems including those that use or support Amazon, Google or Apple in-car systems.
In the terms of this Bill, part 6 applies to “radio selection services”, and it is device-neutral. While smart speakers represent a significant and growing proportion of radio listening, for the benefit of Members today and for Hansard, I would like to be clear that the term we have used in the legislation is “radio selection service”, through which the provisions could extend to any device with a microphone, including in-car systems that can respond to a spoken command requesting a radio station to be played. While I am sure that we will go on using smart speaker as a short-hand term, it is important to bear in mind that the requirements in part 6 apply to “designated radio selection services”, which is a service used by a significant number of people. We have made clear in new section 362BB that in assessing whether the use of the service is significant, we can consider the context, particularly where the service is used in a vehicle.
Amendments 42 to 44 seek to extend protections for radio into other audio systems provided by car manufacturers, whether these systems are voice controlled or not. However, our approach to developing these provisions has been to assess the potential risk from platforms being able to take a gatekeeper role, and to have targeted and appropriate measures that enable Ofcom to deal with any concerns. Individual systems provided by car manufacturers and which facilitate access to audio services or support this via connectivity links do not provide any way to disrupt access to radio services. We are, however, conscious about the longer-term issue raised with us by UK radio operators that at some point in the future radio might be designed out of cars and other vehicles. We absolutely accept that this would be a very regrettable development and that, given the importance of radio to listeners, we would need to look at it.
Kirsty Blackman
Say that a car manufacturer or a significant number of car manufacturers had a deal with Apple, and that their vehicles played only Apple services, or it was very difficult to find services other than Apple ones. Is that the point at which the Government would begin to look at a change? The relationship between the tech platforms and radio is good—I do not want to give the impression that it is not—but the tech platforms’ potential monopoly or domination of the market is significant, and therefore the risk is there.
Sir John Whittingdale
I completely understand the hon. Lady’s concern, and I will say a little more about our approach to that issue in some detail. Essentially, we recognise that we need to keep a close eye on the issue. At the moment, given the very high level of consumer support, it seems unlikely that the car manufacturers would want to alienate new customers by not having the equipment that car buyers now regard as standard. In our view, a better approach is to support the very effective partnerships between the radio industry and the car industry. An example is Radioplayer, which is a major initiative between the BBC—[Interruption.]
Sir John Whittingdale
I was just saying that the Government’s approach to the issue is to encourage the existing good partnerships between the radio sector and car manufacturers. Radioplayer is an initiative by the BBC and commercial radio that supports the use of common standards and technology, to make it much easier for partner manufacturers to integrate radio into car entertainment systems. The BBC and commercial radio recently announced new investment to expand that work, to support and build Radioplayer in the UK and to continue the development of partnerships across Europe. Radioplayer has partnerships with manufacturers including Volkswagen Group, BMW and Renault, which together represent over 40% of all European car sales, and it recently announced a long-term extension and expansion of its partnership with VW Group’s automated software company. A range of other companies also provide integration services. That prevents car manufacturers from having to bear all the research and development costs as systems develop.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for noting all those car manufacturers. As the representative of Luton North, I would like to include van manufacturers as well, particularly Vauxhall.
Sir John Whittingdale
I have no doubt that van drivers spend as much time listening to the radio as car drivers do, so the hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight vans.
Turning back to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, we believe that existing partnerships are the most effective way forward. However, we still have power to intervene—by, for instance, changing the definition of a radio selection service to include different ways in which radio stations are selected, if a clear need arises in the future. We will continue to support efforts by the radio industry to develop partnerships with car manufacturers, which, as I say, have produced good results. We will also keep these issues under review, as she requests. I hope that will go some way towards reassuring her, and that she is willing to withdraw her amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
I accept and understand the Minister’s reassurances. I am pleased to hear his support for radio, and his understanding of its importance, particularly in relation to car and van use. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 48, page 89, line 21, at end insert—
“(4A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would ensure that regulations which designate and specify descriptions of radio selection services are subject to the affirmative procedure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 33, in clause 48, page 89, line 25, at end insert—
“(5A) Before making regulations under subsection (5), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) persons who appear to the Secretary of State to represent providers of radio selection services;
(b) persons who appear to the Secretary of State to represent providers of internet radio services;
(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State would have to consult before making regulations adding or removing a condition that must be satisfied before a radio selection service may be designated.
Stephanie Peacock
I will speak in much more detail about my support for clause 48, and for protecting radio services, in various other debates on this part of the Bill, but here I will focus on two areas where increased scrutiny is needed, both of which will be important for the integrity of the regime. In the initial drafting of the Bill, there were many areas in which the Government had not incorporated sufficient scrutiny of powers to create secondary legislation. That was picked up by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which made various recommendations to do with strengthening scrutiny requirements and ensuring that power was not concentrated in the hands of the Secretary of State where that was not necessary.
Many of those suggestions were accepted by Government, but in the area of designated radio selection services, the Government chose not to follow the relevant recommendations. Indeed, it is understandable that the Government have chosen not to determine in the Bill which radio selection services will be regulated, and are instead leaving the definition broad, so as to include those that are
“used by a significant number of members of the public”.
That will ensure that the decision on which platforms are in scope can be informed by the recommendations of Ofcom, and that the list can be amended in the future to fit the needs of the regime.
Kirsty Blackman
These amendments would ensure that the regulations were subject to the affirmative procedure when they were first created, and advance consultation on any changes to those regulations. Have I got that correct? If so, I am happy to support the hon. Lady.
Stephanie Peacock
Yes. We understand why the Bill is not prescriptive in setting out designated radio selection services, but if that is to change, there should be further parliamentary scrutiny.
Sir John Whittingdale
On amendment 32, the hon. Lady and I have debated the secondary legislation provided for in this Bill, and in other Bills in the past. In this case, we do not agree that the affirmative procedure is appropriate. As the Bill sets out, the designation of a radio selection service will reflect the fact that it is used by a significant number of people who access radio services. Advice on what level of use is significant, and which services cross that threshold, is a matter for Ofcom in its role as independent regulator.
As is set out in proposed new section 362BB(3) to the Communications Act 2003, the Secretary of State must have received a report from Ofcom before making the relevant designation regulations. The framework for designation is therefore set by this Bill, and advice on which services are used by significant numbers of people will be provided by Ofcom. On receipt of Ofcom’s advice, the Secretary of State must consult with radio selection services and the radio industry, as well as others whom they consider appropriate, in accordance with proposed new section 362BB(4), before coming to a decision. They can disagree with Ofcom’s recommendation, as provided for in proposed new section 362BC(6), but must provide reasons for doing so.
The order-making power relates to orders confirming the Secretary of State’s decision to designate a platform or platforms. The order will be laid before Parliament and follow the negative procedure. We felt that the affirmative procedure, which would trigger a debate in both Houses, was not appropriate, given that the exercise of this power relates to decisions affecting one or more companies. I hope that the hon. Member for Barnsley East will accept that in this case, a negative resolution is sufficient.
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Barnsley East for tabling amendment 33, and I absolutely recognise the intention behind it: to ensure that the Secretary of State consults before making regulations adding, removing or altering a condition that that must be satisfied before a radio selection service may be designated. A similar consultation requirement is imposed by proposed new section 362BB(4) before the Secretary of State can make regulations designating a radio selection service.
I acknowledge that it is reasonable to seek an equivalent requirement with regard to making any changes to the conditions that need to be satisfied before a service may be designated. However, the full impact of the amendment’s wording will need to be looked at by parliamentary counsel. In particular, the hon. Lady’s proposal will need to be considered in the context of subsection (4) of proposed new section 362BB to the Communications Act 2003. I hope that she is willing to withdraw the amendment, on the understanding that the Government will consider the matter further before Report.
Stephanie Peacock
I thought for a moment that the Minister was going to support my amendment. However, I am happy with his explanation, and so am willing not to move amendment 33. On amendment 32, I am afraid that once again we disagree on the statutory instrument, and once again I am not comfortable with the fact that Ofcom’s recommendations can be ignored, with no subsequent debate. For that reason, I will press the amendment to a vote.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 48, page 91, line 26, at end insert
“, or
(b) is a UK on-demand sound service and is provided by the BBC or by a person who holds a licence under Part 3 of the 1990 Act or Part 2 of the 1996 Act.”
This amendment and Amendments 46 and 47 would expand the scope of “internet radio service” to include on-demand and internet only content provided by the BBC or Ofcom-licenced radio stations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 46, in clause 48, page 91, line 33, at end insert—
“(3) In this section a “UK on-demand sound service” means a service whose principal purpose is, or whose principal purposes include, the provision of programmes consisting wholly of sound and which has the following characteristics—
(a) its content is aimed mainly at audiences in the United Kingdom;
(b) access to it is on-demand;
(c) there is a person who has editorial responsibility for it; and
(d) it is made available by that person for use by members of the public (whether or not for payment).”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 45.
Amendment 47, in clause 48, page 91, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 93 and insert—
“362BG Meaning of “relevant internet radio service”
(1) In this Part, “relevant internet radio service” means an internet radio service for the time being included in the list maintained by OFCOM under subsection (2).
(2) OFCOM must establish and maintain an up to date list of the internet radio services in relation to which the condition in subsection (3) is satisfied and their providers.
(3) The condition in this subsection is that the provider of an internet radio service—
(a) has given notice to OFCOM requesting that the service be included in the list, and
(b) has not since then given notice to OFCOM under subsection (4) or (5).
(4) The provider of an internet radio service included in the list may give notice to OFCOM requesting that the service be removed from the list.
(5) The provider of an internet radio service included in the list must give notice to OFCOM if—
(a) that person ceases to be the provider of the service,
(b) that person ceases to be the provider of the UK radio service to which it relates, or
(c) the service ceases to be provided.
(6) A notice given to OFCOM under this section must—
(a) be sent in such manner as OFCOM may require;
(b) contain such information as OFCOM may require.
(7) OFCOM must publish the list on a publicly accessible part of their website.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 45.
Amendment 51, in clause 48, page 92, line 11, after “time” insert
“to a material extent only”.
This amendment would make the definition of an “internet radio service” less restrictive so that it can account for time lags or small differences in output.
New clause 3—Regulation of selection services for on demand and online-only content—
“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations provide for the regulation of selection services for on demand and online-only content equivalent to the regulation of radio selection services provided for by section 48 and Schedule 9 of this Act.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may amend primary legislation.”
Kirsty Blackman
I will be fairly brief. Amendment 45 is about the scope of regulation of the selection services, and about internet radio services, including on-demand and internet-only content provided by the BBC or Ofcom-licensed radio stations.
There are some issues with the definition, given the changing nature of radio and listening; the fact that people listen to services on demand and to internet radio; and the possibility of a time lag between internet or digital radio broadcasting, and broadcasting on analogue services. Some services are in scope only if they are broadcast on digital radio at the same time as being broadcast on the internet. If there is a time lag between the two, then they are not broadcast at the same time—and they may be broadcast only a few seconds apart. I would like clarity from the Minister on whether “at the same time” means “sort of at the same time.” If someone accidentally listens to the radio via two different methods at once, they may find that what is being played is slightly out of sync. I might do that when I move between the car and the house, or move between listening on my mobile phone to listening on my television. I may have different ways of listening to a service.
To be fair, I do not differentiate between listening on the internet and listening to digital audio broadcasting radio. If someone asked me whether what was coming through my car speakers was being streamed through the internet, coming from DAB or on an analogue service, I probably could not say. All I know is that I am listening to Northsound Radio, or BBC Radio Scotland; the method I am using does not make a difference to me.
There is also some stuff here about Ofcom-licensed radio that is broadcast only on the internet. That is also important, because again, people listening to Classic FM have no idea whether the programme is available only on DAB or on the internet. They just know that they are listening to Classic FM. For those people, the definitions do not matter; nor do they matter for licensing. Classic FM and BBC radio are licensed in the same way, through Ofcom, whether people listen to them online or via DAB. They are held to the same standards. The question is therefore whether the Bill does what the Minister and the Government intend: ensure that regulations and protections are in place, whether programmes are broadcast via digital radio, the internet or analogue services.
Stephanie Peacock
I will begin by addressing amendments 45 to 47 and new clause 3, which I tabled. I am disappointed that on-demand and podcast listening appear to have been excluded from the new radio protections. As the BBC points out, it is somewhat unusual that the Government have recognised the need to legislate in the Bill for on-demand TV content, and acknowledge its growing role in people’s viewing habits, yet have neglected to recognise the same patterns emerging for audio content and the rise of podcasts, and are failing to provide appropriate protections as a result. Some 10 million adults listen to podcasts every week, and there are estimates that in just 3 years’ time, there will be more than 28 million podcast listeners in the UK. Likewise, of BBC Sounds’ 417 million plays between October and December 2022, 193 million were on demand. It seems somewhat counterintuitive, therefore, that the Bill tries to protect the future of radio through a clause that does not pay any attention to one of the fastest growing ways of listening to audio.
To use an example provided by Radiocentre, under the current system, a user would be able to tune in to the LBC breakfast show with Nick Ferrari but could not be guaranteed access to the hugely popular podcast “The News Agents”. The same applies to on-demand radio: a user could listen to “World at One” or “Today in Parliament” live, but cannot be sure of catch-up access. Of course, given the breadth of podcasts available, it makes sense that any change might begin with ensuring access to podcasts associated with Ofcom-regulated stations. That would give a reasonable limit, so that platforms are not given the extra burden of onboarding a number of unregulated services that are not already within scope of the Bill. However, given the popularity of podcasts and the Government’s intention to protect valuable UK audio content, excluding podcasts altogether seems like missing a huge opportunity. I hope that the Minister understands that that is a contradiction, and will lend his support to some of the amendments.
My new clause 3, and amendments 45 to 47, make very similar requests of the Government on this topic, though new clause 3 is less prescriptive. If the Minister chooses not to support these amendments, it would at least be a good opportunity for him to explain why podcast services have been excluded. I point out again that the last chance we had to create media legislation was 20 years ago. What if another opportunity does not arise for 20 years? Does he not think that it will seem rather out of place for there to be no protection for on-demand audio content? Many measures in the Bill were crafted specifically to allow for future-proofing and a forward-looking vision. This is one area where such a vision has unfortunately been lacking, and I hope to rectify that through the amendments, with the support and co-operation of the Committee; I know that many of its members are in agreement with me on this.
On amendment 51, there have been various concerns, during the Bill’s formation, about the definition of an internet radio service, and the reference to programmes being provided in the same way and at the same time as the broadcast service. I am therefore glad that since the draft Bill, tweaks have been made to ensure that adverts are disregarded when it comes to considering whether a programme is being provided at the same time as a broadcast service. That change will have come as a great relief to providers of radio services that rely on a certain level of customisation when it comes to adverts. However, I know that Radiocentre and others still have concerns that the Bill does not account for minor differences in output, or time lags. Will a small difference, such as a time lag between a broadcast and an online radio station’s output, be considered a breach of the definition, and exclude a station from being designated as an internet radio service? At the very least, I hope that that was not the intention of the wording. It is important to clarify that explicitly in the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
I understand the intention behind the amendments, but the purpose of the Bill is to protect the public value of live licensed radio, as secured within the regulatory framework. The effect of the measure proposed by the hon. Member for Barnsley East would extend the scope of the regime to content that, notwithstanding its source, is unregulated. That would significantly broaden the scope of the legislation and risk placing disproportionate burdens on the platforms, as well as potentially delaying the implementation of the regime by Ofcom. It would also exclude similar content produced by independent producers and distributed as podcasts.
The hon. Lady raised the issue that Nick Ferrari’s show on LBC might fall within the regulatory framework, but that Jon Sopel and Emily Maitlis might fall outside it. The effect of the hon. Lady’s proposal would be to bring “The News Agents” within the scope of the framework, because it is produced by Global, but “The Rest is Politics” with Rory Stewart and Mr Campbell would be outside the regulatory framework because it is produced by Goalhanger and is therefore not captured by the measure.
Andy Carter
I want to set out where I think there may be problems. Historically, many radio stations have created what is called “split content”. That could be during ad breaks, for example—if someone is listening on FM, they would hear one set of adverts, but if they are listening on AM, they would hear a different set of adverts. In the situation where a radio station decides to broadcast a set of adverts on FM—perhaps a local set of adverts aimed at Warrington—but decides to put national adverts on its internet streaming platform, because it is heard all over the UK, there would be two very different programmes going out for two or three minutes. That is where there is some concern about different content for a period of time; while it is being broadcast live, different content is inserted into the stream. That is somewhere where there is slight confusion.
Sir John Whittingdale
I understand the point that my hon. Friend is getting at, but the provisions of the Bill are about live radio, and I think that the example he gave would be captured, because it is still live radio. The provision relates to non-live radio in the form of podcasts. I take the point that my hon. Friend makes, and I am happy to follow it up with a bit more detail, if that would be helpful.
As I said, the purpose of the Bill is about live radio, which remains the main way in which audio content is consumed. The Government committed, in their response to the digital radio and audio review, to revisiting those issues.
Kirsty Blackman
We understand that public service broadcasters, whether they are providing that public service on radio or television, should have a commensurate level of prominence. Does the Minister not agree that those people who have gone through the hoops to be Ofcom-licensed should have more prominence? That is partly the idea behind the amendments on licensing the “The News Agents” podcast, for example. It is produced by someone who has gone through the hoops to get those Ofcom licenses, whereas the other podcast—I forget its name—
Kirsty Blackman
“The Rest is Politics” would not be licensed, on the basis that its producers have not jumped through those hoops to meet the standards required to get Ofcom licensing.
Sir John Whittingdale
But the podcast is not subject to the regulatory requirements. It is absolutely the case that “The News Agents” is produced by a broadcaster that holds an Ofcom license, but that does not mean that the requirements of the licence apply to the content of the podcast.
Sarah Owen
Does the Minister not find it slightly perverse that the top-billing podcast, “The Rest is Politics”, which is the most listened-to podcast, is not subject to the requirements, yet one that is not the most listened to is subject to the requirements?
Sir John Whittingdale
Under the terms of the Bill, neither of them will be. The purpose of the Bill is to extend the regulatory regime to cover live radio, in whichever format it is consumed, but I do not think that podcasts—I am depressed to hear that “The Rest is Politics” is the top podcast on the charts, but there is no accounting for taste—should be subject to regulation, despite high listener numbers. As I say, we are happy to keep the matter under review, and the Bill allows for the amendment of relevant definitions. On the basis of that assurance, I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North will be willing to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 51 relates to the definition of “corresponds” in proposed new section 362BG(4). I recognise the amendment’s intention, and it is correct to say that there may sometimes be a very small difference between when an internet radio service is received by a listener and when the corresponding licensed broadcast service is received. That is why proposed new section 362BG(4) refers to when programmes are broadcast and provided by the station, rather than when they are received. It is not the Government’s intention for stations to fall out of scope of the protections because of very small discrepancies.
In any event, we consider that it is clear that very minor time-lags of up to a few seconds are not to be interpreted as not being “at the same time”, and we expect Ofcom to interpret the provision accordingly. However, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North has raised an important issue as to whether minor differences in output between versions of substantially the same programming should be allowed and, if so, whether the provision could be amended in a workable way. We are happy to consider the issue further with the industry and Ofcom. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press her amendment.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Barnsley East for tabling new clause 3, and we recognise its intention, which is to ensure that listeners can access a wide range of audio content on their connected devices. The provisions in part 6 of the Bill are being put in place to protect the public value of live, licensed UK radio. Although the options available to listeners have grown over recent years and will continue to do so, live radio remains the main way in which audio content produced by broadcasters is consumed. The provisions also reflect the fact that the regulatory framework that is in place for BBC, commercial and community radio services secures the ongoing provision of their public value content.
The new clause would extend the scope of the regime to unregulated content. At this stage, without a fuller understanding of the online audio market, it would risk significantly broadening the scope of the Bill. In particular, it would place disproportionate burdens on the platforms, without a clear means to ensure that the regime protects content that is of public value. In addition, it may risk significantly delaying the implementation of the regime. For those reasons, we cannot accept the new clause, and I hope that the hon. Lady will consider not pressing it.
Kirsty Blackman
I accept the Minister’s reassurances on amendment 51. His comment on the small time delay is helpful and clarifies the intention of the Bill. His clarification to the Committee is incredibly helpful. I also appreciate his making clear that he would be keen to work with Ofcom, Radiocentre and other interested parties on how the provisions could be improved, if they could. I hope that both Ofcom and Radiocentre hear that, and can put the case to the Minister about the potential for improvement. I understand that the Minister is keen to get the Bill right, and for it to work as intended.
I want to follow up the point that the shadow Minister made about the asymmetry between on-demand services—the fact that on-demand radio services are not within the scope of the Bill but on-demand television services are. If I want to listen to Radio 5 Live’s “Wake Up to Money”, I either have to get up at 5 o’clock in the morning, which is not my favourite thing to do, or I can listen to it on demand, which I did fairly regularly for a number of years. I would expect the same protections for that service as for watching “Question Time” the next day. It is reasonable for members of the public to assume that the same regulations apply. They are both BBC programmes that were broadcast live. I was probably not awake to see both, because I do not stay up for “Question Time”—I very much love staying in my bed for as long as possible.
I should be able to catch up with those programmes on demand, and it makes sense for them to have prominence as public service broadcasts. If I ask Alexa to play “Desert Island Discs” from Sunday, I expect it to play “Desert Island Discs” from Sunday, not the best of “Desert Island Discs” or a particularly popular episode from last year. In the same way, I would expect today’s “Wake Up to Money”, not last week’s episode, Sunday’s round-up or whatever else.
The asymmetry will be confusing for members of the public, who expect the same level of protection, particularly for BBC services, because people have a huge amount of respect for and attachment to the BBC, as well as other public service broadcasters. The BBC is paid for by the licence fee and there is the charter; there are many reasons why it sits so highly in people’s hearts and minds. Why is there therefore not the same protection for television and radio on-demand services, at least for things that were broadcast live and can be considered repeats? I have included the BBC alongside the Ofcom-licenced services in the amendments because it often plays repeats or on-demand versions of programmes that were broadcast live on the radio, although that does not apply to some of the podcasts.
I plan to press amendment 45 to a vote, and the Minister will have an opportunity to speak again if he wishes. I would appreciate it if he took into account the fact that members of the public will not understand the difference between the television and radio requirement, and may be poorly served if they are not able to access the on-demand services they want. Will he commit to consider at least the repeats issue—I class it as repeats, because that is the conversation that we had when we discussed on-demand television services and meeting the public service broadcast requirements? Essentially, that is what a chunk of the Bill is about. Even if we were to remove things that are not broadcast live, such as “The News Agents” podcast, and take into account only things that are broadcast by either the BBC or Ofcom-licenced radio live and then played afterwards on catch-up, people would be able to access the services they want with the protection they want. When they say, “Alexa, please could you play ‘Desert Island Discs’ from Sunday?” they expect to get “Desert Island Discs” from Sunday, rather than something totally unrelated or something like the best of “Desert Island Discs”, which is clearly not what they wanted to listen to at that moment in time.
Sir John Whittingdale
To some extent, the question is where we draw the line. The Bill is about live radio. The hon. Lady has put forward a different category of programming, so we now have three additional categories.
We have the category of what was live programming, which is available on a catch-up, on-demand basis. She gave the example of “Desert Island Discs”, but other examples are “The News Quiz” and various programmes that have gone out in recent days which people want to listen to a little bit later. We then have the category of programming that is not being broadcast live, but is nevertheless produced by a licensed broadcaster—“The News Agents” is an example. We also have the category of programming that is not produced by a licensed broadcaster, which extends into the world of podcasts, of which there are potentially millions. I think it would be extremely difficult to move that into a category of licensing. It is a question of where we draw the line, and the Government felt that the clause addresses a particular challenge, which is to protect live radio from the platforms taking advantage by either charging or replacing ads and so on.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate what the Government are saying about drawing the line, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that that leaves us with a contradiction between audio and visual? For a Bill that is aiming to future-proof, it fails to do that.
Sir John Whittingdale
The regime that the Bill introduces for TV public service broadcasting has slightly different objectives from the regime that we are introducing for radio. In the case of radio, as we have debated, it is much more to do with ensuring that things like advertising are still supplied by the broadcaster, rather than being replaced by the platform, so that, for instance, there is no possibility of the platforms charging radio stations. They are slightly different objectives. It could always be said that there are distinct differences between the regime for audio and the regime for visual, and I think that is going to be inevitable. As I say, this is something where consumer habits are changing and we will of course keep the matter under review. There are powers to make amendments, should they prove necessary in future.
Kirsty Blackman
To be fair, the third category that the Minister mentioned is not something that I brought up. It is something that he has included as a category—not me. I am still clear that there is asymmetry between the on-demand services. I understand that he is trying to protect access to live radio, and I get that. Surely the Bill is also trying to protect access to live TV? It is trying to protect access to public service broadcast.
The Minister and the Government have agreed and understood that people are watching live TV on catch-up. They are saying that a broadcaster’s public service obligations can include on-demand services because of the number of people that are watching television on catch-up. It is exactly the same with radio. I do not understand how he can suggest that the line be drawn where it has been. To me, protecting live radio and live television means protecting access to those on-demand and catch-up services for the same programmes that someone would be listening to on demand.
Andy Carter
I am fairly sympathetic to what the hon. Lady is saying, although I have to say that there is a slight difference, as there is no provision in the Bill for public service elements of a licence to be delivered through on-demand services. There is a difference, I am afraid, and I think the Minister is right in that respect.
Kirsty Blackman
There is provision for public service elements of television to be delivered through on-demand services in the Bill. I do not see why people would not understand that there is the same benefit in accessing this stuff on demand. On radio programming, whether I listen to “Wake Up to Money” at 5 am or 3 pm, I am still getting the same public service benefit from listening to that. I can understand why the BBC, when it is having charter negotiations, might be saying, “We produce this programme, however many people listen to it at the time. Many people listen to it on catch-up, so this is part of the public service benefit and public service good that we provide for the licence fee as part of our charter obligations and as part of our relationship with the Government and with the general public.”
Turning to the amendments that I have tabled, there possibly are different amendments that could have a similar effect on on-demand services and catch-up. I would appreciate some flexibility from the Minister. I understand that the Government are trying to legislate for live radio, but they have chosen to draw an arbitrary line. It would be better if the line were slightly further over than it is. We will have to disagree, so I would like to press amendment 45 to a vote.
The Chair
Before we vote on amendment 45, may I check Stephanie Peacock’s intentions for new clause 3?
Stephanie Peacock
It depends somewhat on what happens with the amendment; I know the vote will come later. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North made the case in some detail and, in my intervention, I also made the case on this contradiction. I completely accept that there is a slight difference between audio and visual content, but, again, I am concerned about the lack of future-proofing. My intentions therefore depend somewhat on this vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 48, page 93, leave out lines 26 to 28.
This amendment would remove the proposed new section 362BH(4), which provides for powers that could in future prohibit or restrict radio stations from levying charges on voice assistant platforms.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 52, in clause 48, page 94, line 27, leave out
“the provider of the selected service agrees”,
and insert
“requested by the provider of the selected service”.
This amendment would clarify that pre-roll advertising would only be allowed if it is something the radio provider has requested.
Amendment 48, in clause 48, page 95, line 3, at end insert—
“(5A) The provider of a radio selection service must provide providers of internet radio services, at their request, with effective, high-quality, continuous and real-time access to, and use of, aggregated and non-aggregated data, including personal data (subject to subsection (7)), that is provided for or generated in the context of the use of the relevant radio selection services by users.
(5B) For the purposes of the personal data referred to in subsection (5A), providers of radio selection services must provide for such access to, and use of, personal data only where the data are directly connected with the services offered by the relevant provider of internet radio services through the relevant radio selection services.”
This amendment and Amendment 49 would require designated radio selection services to provide radio stations with effective, high quality and real time access to user data that is generated by listeners of those stations.
Amendment 49, in clause 48, page 95, line 7, after “(4)” insert “or (5A)”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 48.
Amendment 53, in clause 48, page 95, line 12, at end insert
“or impose any other conditions which would have the same effect”.
This amendment would strengthen the “no charging” provision on voice assistant platforms so that it covers non-financial charges that they could levy on radio stations.
Kirsty Blackman
It is me again, with further amendments on radio.
Amendment 50 would remove the powers that could, in future, prohibit or restrict radio stations from levying charges on voice assistant platforms, which is not unreasonable. I will not say too much about it, as it pretty much speaks for itself.
Amendment 48 concerns designated radio stations and data. It is particularly important for the BBC but also for commercial radio platforms. There is no form of consistent or coherent legislative or regulatory ability for radio services to access high-quality aggregated or non-aggregated data about listeners. Particularly for the BBC, accessing that data and being able to prove how many people are listening to radio services is difficult when none of the platforms has any requirement to provide it. I understand commercial sensitivities and why platforms would like to keep the data and not share it, or at least why they would be uncertain about sharing it, but public service obligations require these organisations to understand the data they receive so that they can make sure that they reach the audiences they wish to reach. If Radio 5 Live is mostly listened to through tech platforms rather than through radios, how can the BBC say how many people are listening to it? How can it understand what its listeners want if it is not able to access data on how many people are really enjoying listening to “Wake Up to Money” or BBC Radio Scotland’s “Sportsound”. If it does not have the flexibility and the ability to access data, it cannot put on the programmes that people really want. It cannot move and change with changing listener habits and cannot ensure that the general public are provided with the best possible services.
With commercial radio stations, it is slightly different. Obviously, they want to appeal to their audiences, but they have to be able to make the case to advertisers about how many people are listening to their services. They have to be able to access some of the data to see who it is that they are appealing to and who is listening to their services. If a shop sells lots of clothing, it will keep an eye on how much clothing is sold—what is selling, what is doing well—and it will buy less of the stuff that is not doing well. The amendment simply asks for a level of parity to some of the information available.
Andy Carter
There is something really interesting around data sharing, particularly for a commercial station’s audience. Commercial stations sell advertising based on the number of ears listening. If all of the data is controlled by the platforms and there is no way for radio stations to access that data, the ability for a commercial operator to continue to sell advertising is significantly limited. Where we have operated previously in a linear environment, diaries placed in people’s homes provide a certain level of data. But the ability for online services to provide much more transparency around the audiences that they deliver is controlled by a third party, and that becomes incredibly dangerous and difficult. So I think there is something in data sharing that we should perhaps consider. The issue also exists for many other forms of media as well. It is similar for TV, for example—it is not just limited to radio.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. It is not just limited to radio, but the BBC has control over iPlayer and can see how many people are viewing it, whereas it has much less control and understanding in relation to things streamed through tech platforms. We cannot stream BBC programmes other than through the iPlayer, but its radio programmes can be streamed other than through BBC Sounds.
To give a level of reassurance on the data sharing, it is not about sharing personal data that people do not consent to being shared. If we set up a new mobile phone, for example, it asks if we are willing to share data and information. I would ask for data sharing to happen only for people who have consented to their data being shared, which a lot of people do.
Lastly, I want to touch on amendment 52, which is about pre-roll advertising. The amendment would clarify that pre-roll advertising would be allowed only if it is something that the radio provider had requested. I think that is the direction that the Minister and the Government are going in, anyway, but we need clarification about pre-roll advertising because I would like the provider of the selected service to agree to it.
We have mentioned already the basis on which commercial radio is run, how advertising pays for commercial radio and how it is able to produce its services and sell them because it can provide adverts that are relevant to people. If every time we listen to Classic FM, we get an advertisement that Classic FM has not consented to, we might end up in a situation where people say, “I don’t want to listen to 30 seconds of adverts. I will just listen to something else.” It should be Classic FM that is making that choice, not the tech services through which it is being streamed. Radio providers should be the ones making the decisions, because it should be their judgment whether it is worth playing those 30 seconds of advertising, whether that will turn people off, and whether it is the right commercial choice to include it in their service. It should be the providers’ choice, rather than that of the tech platforms. Amendment 52 relates specifically to that.
Stephanie Peacock
All the amendments in this group refer to the relationship between internet radio stations and radio selection services. As I have mentioned previously, striking the right balance between the two groups will be integral to the success of the regime as a whole. It is with that in mind that I will address amendments 48 and 49 together, before looking at amendments 52, 50 and 53.
On amendments 48 and 49, data is among the, or possibly the most, highly valued assets in our modern, tech-forward society. I am well aware of that, having served as shadow Minister for Data not too long ago and, having sat opposite the Minister for a lengthy discussion on the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, I know he is too.
Data is key to innovation, unlocking benefits for users and growing an organisation more broadly. It is also crucial for creating the mutually beneficial advertising partnerships on which commercial radio naturally relies, alongside many of our other creative industries. I realise the vital importance of radio stations being able to access data for their audiences, regardless of the fact that such audiences might be listening through a smart speaker. I therefore appreciate the intent of amendments 48 and 49, which seek to ensure designated radio selection services provide stations with user data.
It was my understanding, however, that the need for data was one of the primary reasons for including preferred routes as part of the clause. Indeed, the BBC told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that
“having the ability to play out through our preferred service means that we then get that data to allow us to improve our services. That is why it is such an important provision that should remain in the Bill”.
I am therefore keen to understand from the Minister whether it is his understanding that the requirement for smart speakers to provide a service through a preferred route inherently includes a guarantee that data will be accessible to radio stations as a result. If not, I hope the Minister can take on board what the amendments are trying to achieve and provide us with a comprehensive reassurance that radio stations will have access to user data as they deserve.
I turn to amendment 52. Unlike the draft version of the Bill, the published version signals that pre-roll advertising might be allowed, subject to the agreement of a station. That means that an advert or branded message of the smart speaker’s choosing could play on a smart speaker before the requested radio station begins playing. That is one of a number of changes from the draft version that I believe has helped alleviate some of the strong concerns tech platforms held about this part of the Bill.
On the other hand, Radiocentre, which represents commercial radio, has worries about the new addition. In particular, it cites the difference in bargaining power that radio stations may have in comparison with a tech firm, fearing that may result in the phrase “subject to the agreement of a station” being abused through effective coercion. That would effectively mean that radio stations are forced to take on adverts before their content starts playing.
I understand the concern and am supportive of the way the part as a whole has sought to redress the power imbalance between radio and platforms and secure a healthy future partnership between the two. However, I hope that Ofcom’s ability to enforce the regime more broadly as a result of the Bill will provide protections against abuse of the system, so long as Ofcom is appropriately empowered. There should be protections against any situation where a radio station is forced to allow a pre-roll advertisement against its will.
Can the Minister confirm whether the Bill does enough to ensure that will be the case and provide assurances that the protections for radio stations to refuse will be properly enforced? If he can—and I hope he will—I believe the amendment may not be necessary. After all, it is hard to imagine a situation where a radio provider would freely request a pre-roll advertisement, and I worry that, as a result, the amendment may have the counterintuitive effect of disrupting tech platforms’ precarious acceptance of the part more generally in its published version, compared with its draft.
Amendment 50 seeks to remove the restriction that would mean radio stations cannot charge smart speakers for their services. Conversely, amendment 53 seeks to extend the equivalent restriction on platforms to cover non-financial charges. It is my understanding that the premise of the relevant sections of the Bill is quite simple: to ensure that neither party charges the other. That seems fair to me, as it applies both ways. Can the Minister confirm whether this part looks to ensure that neither radio services nor smart speakers can charge the other when carrying out their duties under this part? If that is the case, any change to that arrangement, as sought by these amendments, may cause an unfair imbalance where it is currently an equal measure.
However, by way of reassurance for radio services that may be concerned about their bargaining power, I hope that the Minister will outline explicitly the protections in place throughout the Bill to ensure that the regime will be enforced with integrity. It is, of course, important that radio stations can be carried by platforms regardless of any power imbalance, and without having to face any unnecessary charges or burdens. That will provide certainty for radio stations and clarity for platforms, both of which need to accept and understand of the regime if it is to work as intended.
Sir John Whittingdale
I will start with amendment 50. As the hon. Member for Barnsley East has set out, the whole purpose of the regime we are putting in place is to ensure that the provision of live radio via smart speakers or similar devices is not monetised by either party and that there are protections for radio stations from having to sadly face charges imposed on them by platforms. At the moment, we agree that it is very unlikely that a station would be in a position to extract charges from a platform; the reverse is the case. However, in the widespread consultation we had—the hon. Lady has also referred to the discussions she has had with platforms—it was felt that nevertheless there did need to be some fall-back protection in place. If the hon. Lady’s proposed amendments were to be made, there would be no ability for the regime to be updated in the future, were the market to develop in such a way as to make it a realistic prospect. We think it is important to have that safeguard power should we one day encounter a situation where radio stations sought to extract charges from a platform.
Any exercise of the power within the Bill is subject to consultation, as set out in proposed new section 362BH to the Communications Act 2003, and it would also need to be approved by each House through the affirmative procedure. We nevertheless think the power is an important one, and I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Barnsley East will consider not pressing her amendment.
Turning to amendment 52, we do not think there is a need to change the wording of the current provision. There are a number of ways through which a station can reach its listeners via their connected devices. They can do so directly, through the use of a service operated by the platform; there are, in particular, means such as the Amazon Alexa radio skills kit, which offers an extremely effective way—particularly for small stations—to provide their content via the internet. Some of the aggregators, such as Global Player or BBC Sounds, act as a portal through which a number of different stations provided by the same operator can be made available. Others, such as TuneIn, bring together a range of different stations from different providers.
It will be for each station to decide the option that best fits its needs and to take advantage of the protections offered by the Bill. Some of those options may involve the inclusion of a short period of advertising before the radio station is played. However, the provisions in proposed new section 362BI are clear that advertising cannot be imposed on a station—it must be agreed to. This will ensure there remains scope for mutually beneficial arrangements, while ensuring that radio maintains control over the content that reaches its listeners. For that reason, I do not think the amendment, as the hon. Member for Barnsley East suggests, is necessary.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate the argument the Minister is making, and I did not really want to interrupt, but for clarity, these amendments are in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, not mine.
Sir John Whittingdale
I do apologise. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was endorsing them, but I will direct my remarks particularly to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North.
Stephanie Peacock
If the Minister was listening to my speech, he would know that I am more sympathetic to his position than to that of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, but it is a fine balance between both the platforms and the radio.
Sir John Whittingdale
And indeed a fine balance between the Government and the SNP. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying her position; I direct my remarks particularly to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North.
The Government absolutely recognise the intention behind amendments 48 and 49, but we do not think it appropriate to include such provisions within the Bill. We absolutely acknowledge that it would be of benefit to radio stations to be assured of access to listener data above and beyond the data that radio stations collect themselves, from monitoring their own streams or from surveys such as those by Radio Joint Audience Research. The provisions in the Bill are being put in place to address issues specific to radio, namely securing BBC and Ofcom-licensed commercial and community stations’ ability to access their listeners. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South made clear, the issues raised in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North could apply across a wide range of sectors and are therefore more appropriately addressed in the context of the Government’s wider work on competition in digital markets.
I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North will, to some extent, be reassured by the provisions in proposed new section 362BI that allow radio stations to nominate a preferred route for their service to be delivered to listeners, provided that the route is not unduly burdensome for the platform to deliver. I take the point from the hon. Member for Barnsley East about the importance that some stations attach to the ability to designate a preferred route. These measures do provide scope for a route through which—subject to a listener’s consent, for example through logging in—a broadcaster may be able to access valuable data to enable it to further improve its service. For those reasons, we do not support the amendment; I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North will not press it.
In addressing amendment 53, it may be helpful to set out the context of the overall regime. At the moment, platforms and radio stations both benefit from carriage: the platforms provide radio with another way to reach its audiences, and listening to radio is one of the main reasons why people buy devices such as smart speakers. At this stage, there is no evidence to suggest that the platforms are seeking to charge stations for access, but as more and more listening shifts online, there is a risk that the balance will shift in favour of the platforms, creating an economic incentive for them to monetise the content to which they provide access.
Proposed new section 362BI will address the issue by limiting the scope for platforms to use their position to monetise the carriage of radio in the future. In the event that they seek to do so in ways that might not be covered by these provisions, or indeed by the ongoing work within Government on competition in digital markets, the new provisions will provide the Secretary of State with powers to intervene. In particular, proposed new section 362BP(2) will enable the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations
“about the terms and conditions that may be offered by the provider of a radio selection service to the provider of a relevant internet radio service for or in connection with the use of the service to access the relevant internet radio service”
and
“about the charges that may be imposed by the provider of a radio selection service”.
On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North will not press her amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the Minister for that. I make it clear that there is not a fine line between the two parties; there is a gaping chasm. However, in relation to the Bill, I think we are largely pointing in the same direction.
Kirsty Blackman
On almost every issue we have raised, there have been slight differences between us and the Government, but we are generally happy with the direction in which they are going. I am only disappointed that it has taken 20 years to get to a Media Bill, and I am very keen for the next Media Bill to come more quickly, because things are changing very quickly. The need for changes in legislation to keep up with the changing shape of our world will come more quickly than in 20 years’ time. I made exactly the same case during the passage of the Online Safety Act 2023. It should have been created when I was first using the internet in the early ’90s, rather than waiting until 2022 or 2023.
Sir John Whittingdale
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 48, page 102, line 11, after “service” insert
“, or—
(b) a person who was but is no longer a provider of a relevant internet radio service,”.
This amendment and Amendment 13 enable OFCOM to give a provisional notice of contravention to a former provider of a relevant internet radio service.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 13 to 15.
Clause stand part.
Schedule 9.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am grateful to hon. Members for their participation in this debate on part 6, which is an important part of the Bill. It is based on the findings of the digital radio and audio review, taking account of the way in which radio listening is changing, as we have discussed, and in particular the awareness of platforms acting as a gatekeeper with the potential ability to direct listeners away from UK radio content towards other services, such as their own music playlists or third-party services that have paid for prominence or that seek to leverage value in charges.
Our published impact assessment sets out how the economic relationship between stations and platforms will change as an increased share of listening moves online. That shift will increase the economic incentive for platforms with a significant share of radio listening to seek to monetise the carriage of radio services, for example through requiring radio to give up a fixed share of advertising inventory. The ability of UK radio to continue to deliver public value to its listeners would be endangered if platforms were able to do so effectively.
The purpose of these provisions in the Bill is to put in place a targeted package of measures that will require the major platforms to ensure that UK radio stations remain available to their listeners on request, and that will prevent those platforms from inserting or overlaying their own content, such as advertising or charging for access. This will ensure that UK radio remains accessible to listeners on their connected audio devices, while providing scope for innovative collaboration and partnerships between stations and platforms.
The measures do not go as far as those proposed in the digital radio and audio review. For example, they do not include measures on access to data transparency of algorithms or self-preferencing of services. Those are wider cross-sectoral issues and, as such, are more appropriately addressed through the wider work that is ongoing within Government relating to competition in digital markets.
The measures in this Bill focus on broadcast radio. Internet-only radio-like services and other online audio are not within the scope of the Bill. Our priority is to protect the public value of radio services that are subject to oversight and sanction from Ofcom, for example through the broadcasting code. We have also listened carefully to the practical concerns issued by the tech platforms during consideration of the draft Bill. We have made a number of changes to ensure that the effect of the measures is reasonable and proportionate while reflecting the policy intention to secure radio’s position in the long term as it continues to transition from an analogue to a digital future.
The provisions inserting proposed new sections 362BA to 362BE into the Communications Act 2003 therefore provide a framework for the identification of “radio selection services”—the voice-activated software underpinning connected audio devices—and then the process by which such services can be designated. The significance of voice activation is that, in large part, it enables platforms to take on a gatekeeper role; it is often the voice assistant intermediary through which listeners may be directed away from radio. It will be for Ofcom to consult and to advise the Secretary of State on which platforms should be designated.
The provisions in proposed new sections 362BF to 362BH set out that the live online streams of BBC and licensed commercial and community stations will be able to receive the protections set out under the regime, provided that those streams correspond to the station’s broadcast service and that the station has opted in to the regime. The protections do not extend to on-demand content produced by stations, or to other unregulated online-only content. We recognise that the audio market, and listening habits, will continue to evolve, so the provisions in proposed new section 362BH allow for amendment of the relevant definitions, which will allow this regime to keep pace with that evolution. [Interruption.] It is not that dramatic! Proposed new section 362BH also includes a specific reference to stations seeking to charge the platforms for provision of their services. Although, as I have said, there is no evidence to date of stations being in a position to do this, the provision recognises that potential risk and clarifies our expectation that the carriage of radio services should not be monetised by either party.
Proposed new section 362BI sets out the duties that will be imposed on designated radio selection services in relation to those radio stations that are within scope of the regime. It will be supported by the code of practice prepared by Ofcom in accordance with the Bill. The first duty, set out in subsection (1), essentially says that when a listener asks for a radio station, they should receive that station. The second duty is that the station should not be interrupted; while brief identifications or pre-roll adverts are permitted, once the station is up and running it must be allowed to continue. The third duty is the default route protection. The fourth duty is that stations must not be charged for the provision of their live services. Finally, the intention is not to prevent a user from setting their own preferences, where available, or using the device for other means.
Government amendments 12 and 13 are technical amendments to correct a drafting omission in proposed new section 362BS, which deals with provisional notices of contravention that Ofcom may issue to enforce requirements. The new provision covers only former providers of radio selection services; it does not cover former providers of a relevant internet radio service. Unless the amendments are agreed to, it will not be possible for Ofcom to issue a provisional notice of contravention to a former provider of a relevant internet radio service. The amendments deal with an obvious gap in the enforcement mechanisms; I hope, with this explanation, that hon. Members can support them.
Government amendments 14 and 15 are also technical, and will correct a drafting omission. I hope that they will similarly be supported.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Mike Wood.)
11.24 am
Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.
Criminal Justice Bill (First sitting)
(1 year ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I have a couple of preliminary announcements. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to them. Please switch off any electronic devices or turn them to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings—only water please. Date Time Witness Tuesday 12 December Until no later than 9.55 am National Police Chiefs’ Council Tuesday 12 December Until no later than 10.40 am National Crime Agency; Crown Prosecution Service Tuesday 12 December Until no later than 11.25 am Victims Commissioner for England and Wales; Until no later than 11.25 am Tuesday 12 December Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales Tuesday 12 December Until no later than 2.45 am Resolve; Crest Advisory Tuesday 12 December Until no later than 3.30 pm College of Policing; HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary and HM Chief Inspector of Fire and Rescue Services Tuesday 12 December Until no later than 3.50 pm Dame Vera Baird DBE KC Tuesday 12 December Until no later than 4.10 pm Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation Tuesday 12 December Until no later than 4.30 pm Law Commission of England and Wales Thursday 14 December Until no later than 11.55 am Police Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales Thursday 14 December Until no later than 12.40 pm Local Government Association; Association of Police and Crime Commissioners Thursday 14 December Until no later than 1 pm Prison Officers Association Thursday 14 December Until no later than 2.20 pm Kennedy Talbot KC Thursday 14 December Until no later than 3.05 pm Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers; Co-operative Group Limited; British Retail Consortium Thursday 14 December Until no later than 3.25 pm Clare Wade KC
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take these matters formally. I first call the Minister or the Whip to move the programme motion, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
“1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 12 December) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 12 December;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 14 December;
(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 11 January;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 16 January;
(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 18 January;
(f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 23 January;
(g) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 25 January;
(h) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 30 January;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 7, Schedule 1, Clauses 8 to 13, Schedule 2, Clauses 14 to 20, Schedule 3, Clauses 21 to 32, Schedule 4, Clause 33, Schedule 5, Clauses 34 to 68, Schedule 6, Clause 69, Schedule 7, Clauses 70 and 71, Schedule 8, Clauses 72 to 79, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00pm on Tuesday 30 January.”—(Chris Philp.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Chris Philp.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Chris Philp.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and will be circulated to Members by email. We will now sit in private to discuss lines of questioning.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and proceedings are being broadcast. Before we hear from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make any declarations of interest in connection with this Bill? No, okay.
We will now hear oral evidence from Chief Constable Gavin Stephens. Mr Stephens, you are very welcome. Thank you for joining us as Chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For this panel, we have until 9.55 am. Would the witness introduce themselves for the record?
Chief Constable Stephens: Good morning, Committee. My name is Gavin Stephens. I am chief constable and chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: As you say, we have been doing a great deal of work in trying to strengthen the misconduct processes to ensure that those who have no place in policing are removed from the service with some speed and vigour. We welcome the additional provisions in this Bill to strengthen, in particular, the role of chief constables to have a say in who should be employed within policing. This is fundamentally an employment process. In particular, we welcome the addition to allow chief constables to have a route of appeal on decisions that, at the moment, could only be done through judicial review, so we welcome that additional measure as well.
Alex Norris
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: We are very pleased with the progress that has been made. We see no need at this point in time for any additional provisions. The broader point perhaps is, in the service, we have been doing a great deal of work to ensure that we get the right colleagues entering and, where necessary, leaving the service. Our focus now is beyond the provisions of this Bill about professional standards throughout somebody’s vocation and career and what we do to transform the culture of policing.
Alex Norris
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: In broad terms, we welcome the antisocial behaviour provisions. There is clearly a great deal of detail in the Bill, and we have a short period of time. If it would assist the Committee, I am happy to do a written submission after this morning with some more detailed comments on the whole range of provisions.
We broadly welcome the antisocial behaviour provisions. There is one such provision around rough sleeping, if I can call it that, where it causes a nuisance or there is some criminality associated with it. Our view is that that is something that needs very careful and measured consideration. We do not say in policing that rough sleeping is a matter solely for policing and, if the provisions are used, that should be done in conjunction with other local community safety partners and on the basis of necessity. For example, if rough sleeping is associated with mental ill health or homelessness, it is clearly not a matter for policing at all. If there are encampments that are directly associated with criminality, or where there is a direct risk to people in those encampments—because, for example, we do receive reports from time to time of serious sexual offences taking place in such rough sleeping groups—we would clearly want to act in concert with other community safety partners to ensure that people are safe. However, it is not a matter for policing to be removing tents in general, so that is something to which we would want to give very careful consideration.
Alex Norris
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: Last week, we held the chief constables’ council in Edinburgh—that is, the gathering of all chief constables. One of the topics on the agenda was the financial resilience of policing. Our current estimate is that there is somewhere in the region of a £300-billion cash deficit in policing, which requires some difficult and careful choices about resourcing priorities. Where new provisions come forward—indeed, this was a recommendation in the recent productivity review of policing—they should be costed. Whereas we welcome many, if not all, provisions in the Bill—I am sure we will come on to talk about some of the caveats—there are no costings with them, and we will need to work through, in a very detailed fashion, what the additional burdens on policing will be.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
Good morning, Gavin. Let me start by putting on record my thanks to you, as chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and to all your colleagues in policing for the work that you and officers up and down the country do daily. You put yourselves in the line of danger to protect the rest of us, and I am sure that I speak for the whole Committee and the whole House when I put on record our thanks to you and to police officers up and down the country for the work that you do daily to keep the rest of us safe.
Chief Constable Stephens: Thank you, Minister.
Chris Philp
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: Clearly, at local level, the work of community safety partnerships is really important to this. In different localities, they take different forms, but generally, in most borough and district areas, for example, there will be a meeting that talks about places that need particular attention from a range of partners.
If rough sleeping was causing a nuisance, we would not see that as an issue for policing solely, but we would take part in any joint problem-solving plans in order to address concerns. The issue for us would be if, for example, it was a place where criminality was being orchestrated or where people were particularly vulnerable to becoming victims of crime themselves. Clearly, there is a policing interest in that. We would support local partners, but what we would not want to see is a position where communities turn to policing in order to address the issue of rough sleeping on the streets. There needs to be something more than that that we would want to address in partnership with others.
Chris Philp
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: Absolutely, yes. My experience in many years of policing is that communities often do not make a distinction between criminality and antisocial behaviour. If things are affecting their day-to-day lives, they often consider some of those things to be a crime, even if they are not on the statute book, and expect action against them. In this particular instance, we just need to be cautious that we are not using policing powers in order to address a wider social problem—particularly, for example, where it might be due to mental ill health and other complex factors.
Chris Philp
Q
Would you agree that the warrantless powers of entry contained in the Bill, to enter premises to recover stolen goods where there is no other quick way of doing that and where there is a reasonable suspicion that the stolen goods are on the premises, will help the police to recover stolen goods and to arrest thieves who might otherwise go undetected and unpunished?
Chief Constable Stephens: Such a provision would be supportive to operational policing if implemented carefully and thoughtfully, and in conjunction with the other powers that currently exist. One of the topics about stolen property that has led to this provision is the theft of mobile devices that might emit a signal as to where they currently are. It is the view of police that those systems are not currently accurate enough to give a precise location on every occasion.
Clearly, there will be a significant difference between a rural area with dispersed properties and a dense urban environment where you might have maisonettes and blocks of flats when it comes to being able to precisely locate a stolen item. There are available to us under other legislation very intrusive techniques, to be used covertly, whereby we can accurately pinpoint devices, but that is not what is envisaged, I believe, in this particular provision, and we would need to exercise the powers carefully.
Such a provision needs some level of authority. The Bill mentions an inspector authority, which would be commensurate with other search powers following arrest, for example. That would need to be used in conjunction with additional intelligence, bearing in mind that that power could be used at premises where we might not suspect the people inside to have anything to do with the crime. If we suspected that they did, other powers are available to us, such as power of arrest, power of search following arrest and inspector authority to search the premises. The powers contained in the Bill around searching the premises would not cover searching people within those premises, or, again, multiple occupancy.
The general tenet is, yes, this would be very operationally useful. There would need to be careful consideration about the interfacing with existing policing powers and the level of authority needed to exercise the powers. Fundamentally, in exercising those powers, we would need to maintain the consent of communities that they are being used proportionately, lawfully and only where absolutely necessary.
Chris Philp
Thank you, Gavin. I have one more question. As you know, we have been debating retail crime a great deal. The retail crime action plan, which Chief Constable Amanda Blakeman, in consultation with the Government, published just a few weeks ago, was extremely welcome. One thing that we have debated in Parliament, including during the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which the hon. Member for Stockton South—I mean the hon. Member for Stockton North; we have to be very careful when referring to Stockton these days—and I remember very fondly was whether we needed a separate offence of assaulting a retail worker.
In that piece of legislation, we ended up not creating a separate offence and instead making it a statutory aggravating factor where the victim is a retail worker. From a policing point of view, do you consider that that provides adequate protection for retail workers? Do you think that there would be any benefit in creating a separate offence of assaulting a retail worker, or would you be concerned that, if you did that, you could then ask, “What about teachers? What about local councillors? What about minors?” and so on?
Chief Constable Stephens: On additional offences, we have provisions relating to emergency service workers, which is right and proper. In relation to retail crime, the important thing for policing is that we get a grip on the scale of the emerging problem, hence the action plan that you mentioned, Minster.
Police received over a quarter of a million reports of retail theft in the financial year 2022-23, and there has been a 29% rise in the number of arrests. We are clearly taking action, but there is much more to do. I would be concerned if we started adding to a list of additional assault categories, because where is the limit? People who provide vital public services—I would say that retail is a vital public service, and it is important to the vibrancy of local communities and so on—are worthy of particular consideration, but it is a question of where the limits would be.
The Chair
Before I bring Jess in, four further Members have caught my eye. You have nine minutes between you, so bear that in mind.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Q
To take you back to the conduct questions that you started with, are you satisfied with the current system in policing for finding bad conduct where it has occurred?
Chief Constable Stephens: Once the new provisions are introduced, we will be more satisfied with the system. When the new provisions are in place, we in policing will need to work hard to make sure that we are getting through at more speed. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has talked about the number of backlogs in the Met, for example. That is not just in the Met; it is replicated in our member organisations across England and Wales, so speed is definitely one thing.
Fundamentally—I have had these discussions privately with the Minister and others—we need to reclaim this as an employment process. It has become too legalistic over time.
Jess Phillips
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: Yes, given the right emphasis and the right resourcing.
Jess Phillips
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: I could not give a guarantee that it always would.
Jess Phillips
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: Yes, absolutely.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: Policing can gently request, persuade, cajole and encourage without powers.
Vicky Ford
Or stronger.
Chief Constable Stephens: Back to my earlier point, we would want to do so in conjunction with other partners that can provide the support. From a policing perspective, for us to get to the point where we would want to use powers, we would want to know that it is causing a danger to somebody or that there is real criminality. I can think of a number of ways in which we would be able to deal with the example you describe without resorting to powers.
Vicky Ford
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: This would give a power to move them on, but my previous points stand.
Vicky Ford
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: It would not make a difference in terms of the investigation and operational response, because clearly that is something that police would act on anyway. On whether you would want additional emphasis—whether it would be the will of Parliament to have additional emphasis—when it comes to sentencing, that is a separate matter. But it would not make a difference to the initial policing response to investigate the assault.
Vicky Ford
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: We are very concerned about drink spiking and its rise over recent years. Powers to give that additional emphasis, as a deterrent, would be welcome.
The Chair
I remind Members to try to avoid asking the same questions, because we are limited for time with our witnesses. I call Mark Garnier.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Q
One complaint that I have heard from my local police is that, although they can come in, arrest people and charge people, and take them to court, quite often the retailer, who is the victim of the crime, may be reluctant, after a few instances to go to court and spend a day in court away from their shop. Then, quite possibly, it will be a suspended sentence and that criminal will be back in their shop the next day, after they have lost that day’s work. Does this Bill address any of those particular problems, and do you, in your capacity, find that a problem in securing prosecutions against retail criminals?
Chief Constable Stephens: From the consultation that we have done with the team on this, that has not been reported as a particular problem. I think that the broader problem is the work we need to do in policing to regain the confidence of retailers that we are taking this seriously enough. If we regain that confidence, part of that is regaining the confidence of witnesses to come forward with evidence. New technology that has been discussed as part of the action plan, such as the use of CCTV and facial recognition and so on, when used effectively may well reduce the need for live witnesses to give evidence, if the evidence is incontrovertible.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: Absolutely. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has a knife crime working group, which has been working closely with colleagues in the Home Office for a number of years. I would say that the provisions in the Bill have been drafted in very close consultation with the team. We are very concerned about the use of weapons to intimidate and threaten, not least when they are used in violence. I am conscious of time, but I could provide the Committee with some written examples of where we think the new provisions would help—for instance, the taunting of rival gangs on social media using particular weapons—and the provisions that currently exist and would be strengthened by the Bill. We very much welcome these provisions.
Stephen Metcalfe
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: There are a number of provisions here, including the ability to seize knives, even though they are lawfully being held, if we suspect they are going to be used in criminality. We see that as a very important preventive measure.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: Yes. We agree that it is going to be beneficial.
Anna Firth
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: Again, I will keep it very brief, as I can provide written examples. We have seen on social media—on Snapchat-type channels—threats being made to rival groups. I have seen examples from colleagues in the Metropolitan police from the Notting Hill Carnival, where the threat was towards a group of people who might be present in a particular locality. The ability to have stronger provisions to prevent and disrupt potential violence is really important to us.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank the witness for their evidence and we will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Graeme Biggar, Gregor McGill and Baljit Ubhey gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Graeme Biggar, director general of the National Crime Agency; Gregor McGill, director of legal service for the Crown Prosecution Service; and Baljit Ubhey, director of strategy and policy for the Crown Prosecution Service. For this panel, we have until 10.40 am. Welcome to you all, and thank you for joining us. I know I have just done it, but could you all please introduce yourselves for the record?
Graeme Biggar: I am still Graeme Biggar, director general of the National Crime Agency.
Gregor McGill: I am Gregor McGill, director of legal service at the Crown Prosecution Service.
Baljit Ubhey: I am Baljit Ubhey, director of strategy and policy at the Crown Prosecution Service.
Alex Norris
Q
Graeme Biggar: Sorry, I missed which clauses you referred to.
Alex Norris
Clauses 1 to 8.
Graeme Biggar: Can you just remind me which ones clauses 1 to 8 are?
Alex Norris
They deal with offences related to things used in serious crime, theft or fraud, such as SIM farms and 3D printers—the sorts of items that can be used in organised crime.
Graeme Biggar: 3D printers, concealment and pill presses are three different things that are used in crimes a lot. I will come to SIM farms later. We have seen 3D-printed firearms emerge. They are a function of the fact that we have done well to control the availability of firearms in this country generally, but there is new technology available. We seized 17 weapons—3D-printed firearms—last year; we have seized 25 so far this year. At the moment, the possession of the blueprint to make that firearm is not unlawful, so we can go in and see there is a firearm there, and we can see it is a factory that is making these weapons, but we cannot do anything about it. The Bill could really help on that particular issue.
On pill presses, you will be aware of the number of deaths from drug overdoses, misuse and poisoning in the UK. In 2021—there is a bit of a lag on drug deaths—there were almost 1,500 drug deaths from overdoses on benzodiazepine, which is largely used in pill form. We get other drugs in pill form, such as ecstasy, most notably, but the Met seized 150,000 pills of fentanyl just a couple of weeks ago. Pill presses are used to create these pills and distribute them at the moment. We are unusual, globally, not to have regulation of pill presses. This legislation would make the possession and supply of pill presses without a good, legitimate excuse—there are some legitimate uses for a pill press, obviously—an offence, and that would really help us. In 2020, for example, we did a raid in which we seized 40 million pills from England that were being supplied up to Scotland.
Concealment is the final one of the three in that category. We can seize a vehicle at the border if we discover a sophisticated concealment that is built into a vehicle to hide drugs, cash or, potentially, people, but we cannot actually seize a vehicle within the UK unless we can also show that there is some criminal activity there. These concealments are purpose-built to enable stuff to be both brought across the border and then distributed around the UK. We have seized 438 vehicles over the past three years; about 150 of those were at the border, so we could do that just because there was a concealment. For the others, we had to demonstrate that there was also criminal activity, so that has largely been when we have found drugs or a gun in them. There are factories around the UK that are building these concealments, and people who specialise in building them. It would be really helpful for us to be able to seize the vehicles and prosecute the people who are building them.
You mentioned SIM farms as well. You will all be aware from your constituency correspondence of the amount of fraud there is in this country, and some of that volume is driven by the ability of fraudsters to use SIM farms to automatically generate tens of thousands of text messages. A SIM farm puts lots of SIMs together and does that in an automatic way. The vast majority of that happens overseas, but we have discovered a few SIM farms in the UK. Being able to take action on that would be really helpful too.
Alex Norris
Q
Gregor McGill: It is fair to say that resources are tight at the moment, so any new offences coming into the system will affect not only the CPS but other parts of the criminal justice system—the courts and the prisons—so that will have to be factored in. We are in the process of talking with the Treasury about resources, but that is a relevant factor. We do not know how many cases this will involve. What I can say is that our corporate position is that these will be useful offences to be able to work closely with our colleagues in the National Crime Agency and wider policing to affect criminality, but you are quite right that we will have to keep our eye on the resource implications of them and come back to Ministers if we find that there are issues.
Graeme Biggar: May I just add a comment? For a lot of these particular offences, it will shortcut our investigations, because at the moment we are finding 3D-printed firearms or concealments, but we have to do a whole bunch of extra work to be able to reach the criminal threshold for an actual charge, so in some senses this will actually make things easier for us.
Chris Philp
Q
Graeme Biggar: The drafting for those items does everything I think we need to see regarding both possession and supply. There are other issues that, over time, we will want to think about adding. It is very helpful to see that the Bill allows a mechanism for secondary legislation to be brought forward in order to add other items. One issue that we are looking at currently is childlike sexual abuse dolls. We can seize them, as it is an offence to bring them across the border, but it is not an offence to possess one in the UK. That is an issue we would want to look at adding to that section.
Chris Philp
Q
Graeme Biggar: Yes, it would. It is really important for us to be able to use facial recognition more. I know that is an issue you have been championing. We use it within the NCA, but there is more we need to be doing within the NCA and across police forces in the round.
Chris Philp
Q
Baljit Ubhey: I think it is probably unnecessary. I would echo what Gavin has said about building confidence with the retail community. In the code for Crown prosecutors, it is a public interest factor in favour of prosecuting—where the crime is committed against someone who is conducting a public service—so we already treat that more seriously, and obviously there are a range of offences that cover a range of different assaults.
Chris Philp
Q
Baljit Ubhey: I do not think it is necessary.
Chris Philp
Q
My next question is again for the CPS. In relation to the knife crime provisions, some of them are in this Bill and others are being taken forward via secondary legislation, of course; I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West for her campaigning on this issue. Do you feel that the new offence being created, of possession of a weapon with intent to use unlawful violence, is a helpful addition to the statute book and might enable those who intend to use serious violence but have not yet committed it to be given longer sentences?
Baljit Ubhey: We recognise that this bridges the gap between simple possession and the different circumstances where violence is threatened, so we think it is a helpful addition.
Gregor McGill: It mirrors the offence in the Firearms Act 2023, which prosecutors use a lot and which is a very useful tool, so there is no reason to think that this would not be an equally useful tool.
Chris Philp
Q
Gregor McGill: Yes.
Chris Philp
Q
Gregor McGill: They are used relatively frequently now; we use them a lot with our NCA colleagues. They are probably not used as much as they could be with National Police Chiefs’ Council forces, so we could use them more there.
I was part of the group that negotiated introducing these orders in 2007. The limitation then was that they were not to be used as an alternative to prosecution, so I think that sometimes a rather restrictive view was taken about their use. They have been used a lot after a conviction in a Crown court trial, but they have not been used a lot as a stand-alone measure in the High Court, so there is more that we can do in consultation with our law enforcement colleagues to make sure that we use these measures more frequently.
There are some risks in using them in the High Court. As you know, costs follow the event in the High Court and cost orders can be high. Also, although the standard of proof is said to be on the balance of probabilities and the civil standards, we are seeing that what is required to obtain an order inch up in the High Court to close to the criminal standard. Therefore, by the time you have gone through all that and you are up near the criminal standard, if you have got the evidence, often you can prosecute rather than going for the civil sanction, and that is part of the problem.
However, I do not think any of this is not resolvable with proper communication between ourselves and our law enforcement colleagues. But these orders are a useful tool.
Chris Philp
Q
Gregor McGill: On the whole, I think there have been some concerns because you are putting limitations on people’s ability to do things without them being convicted of a criminal offence. There is always a nervousness about that and a request for really quite strong evidence before that is done. I understand that, but it is an issue sometimes.
Chris Philp
Q
If I have time to do so, I would just like to ask a question to the NCA and to the CPS about the confiscation regime and the changes to that regime proposed in this Bill. I think that the Committee would be interested in hearing your assessment of the likely impact of the changes proposed in the Bill, particularly in clause 32.
Graeme Biggar: We really support these changes. There has been a detailed Law Commission review that has underpinned them. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 has been transformative for law enforcement, but it is also quite complex, and we have evolved ways of making it work.
All the provisions that are in the Bill, and there are obviously an awful lot, will simplify and codify some of what is current practice. It will take some of the work out of doing things; it will enable us to get to resolutions more quickly. It is an awful lot of individual measures, so it is quite hard to put a figure on how much more we will seize or how much less effort we will put into seizing, but we expect to be able to get to more. How much more? It is quite lumpy, as you will know, Minister. Some very large seizures of tens or hundreds of millions can change how much we get each year, but we expect it to make it easier for us, and expect to seize more as a result.
Chris Philp
Q
Graeme Biggar: Yes and yes, and we fed a lot into the Law Commission review. We looked closely at what they came up with, and we fed into the Government consultation. Yes, we are content.
Chris Philp
Q
Graeme Biggar: Yes, we are happy. You did not direct the question to me on SCPOs, so unbelievably quickly on that, two things that will be easier as a result are our ability in the NCA or the police to put an SCPO directly to the court—in consultation with the CPS, rather than putting the burden on to the CPS—and the standard set of conditions. At the moment, we have to set out and justify every single one; in the future, we will be able to draw on the standard set of conditions, which will also reduce the bureaucracy. That should ease the burden on SCPOs as well.
Chris Philp
Q
Gregor McGill: We had full consultation with the Law Commission. These proposals have been lifted out almost entirely from the Law Commission proposals, and we worked with the commission and supported the proposals, so we support them. I cannot say whether it will lead to more—we will have to see—but what it will do is to make the process more transparent and better for victims.
What we are particularly pleased with is the idea that you can go back to court to increase a confiscation order, which I think is better for victims. At the moment, we have a workaround, where we can go back to raise a confiscation order, but if the perpetrator is prepared to pay money direct to the victims, we will allow that money to go to victims, rather than towards the confiscation order. Putting this on a statutory footing, putting hidden assets on a statutory footing, and being able to be realistic where it is clear that some orders will never be enforced will improve transparency and the whole system.
Chris Philp
Q
Gregor McGill: I have not personally, but my specialist proceeds of crime team in the CPS tell me that they have.
Chris Philp
And they are happy?
Gregor McGill: And they are happy.
Graeme Biggar: The Minister gave me a last chance to come in, and I said no, but there was one other thing we would appreciate. At the moment, people who are subject to these orders will sometimes stall, they do not meet their deadlines and the process can drag on for years—we have just concluded a case in which the conviction was in 2018 and we only got the order last month—so amendments to the Bill that would require people to meet the deadlines, giving them a penalty if they did not, would be helpful.
Chris Philp
That is a very good point, which we will undertake to take away to look at. It sounds like a very fair request. I will get on to it now.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Q
Graeme Biggar: We are getting to definitions of the different tech companies. The social media companies are not often the ones that have the IP addresses and so on. We absolutely support this measure, and we have argued for it in the consultations on both this Bill and the Computer Misuse Act.
By and large, the organisations in the UK—the registers here of IP addresses—do act when we put a request in to take down, but not in every single case. Internationally, that happens less often. This would give us that ability—we absolutely would go for voluntary first, and we should stick with that process, because it largely works, but if that does not work, we would then be able to compel the suspension of the domain or the IP address. That would help.
Internationally, we have less success. The very existence of a court order that most other countries have and then companies act on would be really help. It would still be hard to implement in some countries, but it would still increase the amount of positive action taken on the basis of our requests.
Mrs Drummond
Q
Graeme Biggar: This is a bit less relevant to Meta, but we have worked hard with the Home Office on the fraud sector charter, which was published the week before last. It encourages Meta and other companies to take more action to try to stop fraud, which remains really important. They have a huge responsibility that they are currently only partly living up to, but they have signed the charter to make big steps forward, and we look forward to seeing what they will do as a result.
The Chair
Before I call the next question, I remind Members to catch my eye as early as possible. If you do not, I will give leeway to those who caught my eye earlier and you may not get in. I appreciate that points may occur to you as discussions develop, but it would be helpful for timing. I call Jess Phillips.
Jess Phillips
Q
Graeme Biggar: There is nothing missing on people smuggling that we would need at the moment, to answer that direct question. I mentioned child-like sexual abuse dolls. Another issue that you care about is child sexual abuse websites. At the moment, it is obviously a criminal offence to possess or distribute indecent images of children, but it is not a specific criminal offence to be a moderator or an administrator of the dark websites that hold millions of images and videos of children being raped. We often investigate and we prosecute individuals for viewing and distributing the images, but there is not an extra offence for being the person who runs and sets up that kind of website.
Jess Phillips
Q
Graeme Biggar: We do work on grooming gangs when people are below the age of consent, as you know, with Operation Stovewood in Rotherham. We also work on sexual exploitation of adults. We have had a number of investigations recently into women from Romania and Brazil being brought into the UK.
Jess Phillips
Q
Graeme Biggar: We have come across less of that in our investigations, but we will work with the NPCC.
Jess Phillips
I’ll take you on a night out, mate. I could show you it in every single part of the country.
Graeme Biggar: We focus on the ones who cross the border; it is the NPCC that focuses on adult sexual exploitation within the UK.
Jess Phillips
Q
Graeme Biggar: No, we would. If we could see large-scale, organised crime that involves modern slavery, which includes the sexual exploitation of women, we would investigate it. We have not yet come across such a case—certainly not in my time in the NCA.
The Chair
Order. I remind you that you need to focus on the scope of the Bill rather than the general work of the agencies, not to in any way diminish the importance of the issue. Do you have any further questions, Jess?
Anna Firth
Q
Baljit Ubhey: Certainly the fact that it is an either-way offence and you do not have the challenges of the six-month time limits that summary-only offences create —given, as you say, the complexities of how these knives are manufactured, sold and so on—will helpfully close a bit of a gap.
Graeme Biggar: We agree with that point and the points that Gavin made earlier in relation to it.
The Chair
Apologies to Vicky: I understand that you could not hear me, down at the bottom. If any Members cannot hear, please raise your hand to let me know and I will endeavour to speak up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Laura Farris)
Q
Graeme Biggar: No, but let me write to you and the Committee about that.
Vicky Ford
Q
Baljit Ubhey: I think it could be helpful in communicating very specifically. At the moment, there is a specific offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. In addition, there is the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which is old legislation although we still use it for a wide variety of criminality. I take the point, however, that the language of some of the offences under that Act may not be as explicit. We can prosecute spiking, whether it is related to sexual offences or otherwise, but modernising may be helpful.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
If there is time, Chair, I would like to ask a couple of things.
The Chair
Absolutely. There is time. So that Members are aware, we have until 10.37 am. Please make the most of our esteemed guests.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Baljit Ubhey: It is an important measure, given some of the high-profile cases we have seen and the impact they have had on victims. We will have to look very carefully at how we apply for that power—which allows the court or the prosecutor to apply for compulsory attendance—and seek victims’ views. The consideration to think about is whether that would cause extra violence. There is something in the Bill about the use of force, which prison custody officers would need to think about. As the provisions stand, I think prison officers will still have the discretion even if there is an application. I can see why it is in the Bill, but we will have to wait and see how it operates in practice.
Alex Cunningham
Q
The Bill also proposes to transfer prisoners to foreign prisons. That will require international co-operation. I am interested to know whether the police or anybody else have any reservations about transferring people to foreign prisons.
Graeme Biggar: It is probably more a matter for the police than for the NCA. The challenge for us will be our ability to demonstrate that there will be human rights protections in the jurisdiction that the individuals are being transferred to. If we are trying to extradite people from the UK and cannot guarantee where they will be in prison, that will be a challenge in getting the extradition. That will need to be worked through as this proposal is taken forward.
Gregor McGill: I think that is right: I echo what Mr Biggar said. In the extradition world, extradition is a state to state agreement. One state negotiates with another state about returning someone to a state. Bring a third state into that equation and it becomes much more complicated. When we are bringing someone over here, we have to give assurances about prison conditions, and so on. It will become more bureaucratic and more difficult, potentially, in those circumstances. We will have to see what the regulations say.
There is also another pitfall.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Gregor McGill: It is not for prosecutors to say what the regulations should say; that is political. As I say, extradition is an agreement between one state and another to transfer one person from one jurisdiction to another. That transferring country could become a little bit more concerned if they think they have to deal with a third state down the road, because they lose control over it. That is the point I was going to make. Once you send someone to another jurisdiction, you lose control over that person; they become subject to the laws of the country to which they are being sent. That can be another complication. If they commit an offence while they are in custody, over there they would have to be dealt with for that offence. If they escaped from lawful custody when they were there, that would have to be investigated by that new country. Those matters are political decisions, but the issues are practical. Echoing what Graeme said, I would have thought that there will be human rights challenges.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Gregor McGill: Yes, they would.
Alex Cunningham
So, as you say, it is quite complicated.
Gregor McGill: It adds a further layer of complication to an already complicated process, if I may put it that way.
Mark Garnier
Q
Baljit Ubhey indicated assent.
Mark Garnier
Q
Gregor McGill: It is difficult to say. Sentencing is a matter for the court. The police investigate and arrest, send the file to us, we make a decision, take to the court and the court sentences if there is a guilty verdict. The kind of person who regularly does retail theft will often—not always, but often—have addiction or illness issues, which will mean that they will often be stealing to fund an addiction.
Speaking as someone who has been a prosecutor for 33 years, I can say that I recognise what you are saying. When I went to the magistrates court, I regularly saw the same people attending for the same offences, so I accept that it must be frustrating. We are beholden to the law, we have to apply the law and the law must take its course. People serve their sentence and that is what happens. There is not much more we can do in those circumstances, but I understand the frustration.
Mark Garnier
Q
Baljit Ubhey: I recognise the frustration, the challenge and, as you say also, having to give up time to give evidence. Unless you can prove the case without having that witness give evidence, it is challenging. We spoke earlier about CCTV and other ways. Where we can look at using other evidence, we should do that proactively, but often in these cases currently, we need the individual who has been the victim to give evidence. I can absolutely understand the frustration if the person is back. If they have a suspended sentence, which can be triggered, but I recognise the frustration.
Mark Garnier
Q
Baljit Ubhey: I would not say that. I do not think it is a question of the courts letting down. Sentencing, which is a matter for the courts, is a complicated and difficult balancing exercise, as my colleague has just said. Often, the people who are committing the offences have a range of issues that will go into the balance when looking at sentencing. I certainly would not say that people are letting down; I think it is just a challenge.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Baroness Newlove and Nicole Jacobs. For this panel we have until 11.25 am. Welcome to you both. Would you please introduce yourselves for the record?
Baroness Newlove: I am Baroness Newlove, Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales.
Nicole Jacobs: I am Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Nicole Jacobs: There are several provisions in the Bill that I am interested in and support, and then there are a few issues that I feel are not currently in the Bill that could be and should be. First, on measures that are in the Bill, are some of the sentencing provisions that stem from Clare Wade’s review of sentencing, which I fully support. That was a range of recommendations, some of which have been picked up and some of which have not, but they were really put forward by Clare Wade KC to be taken as a whole. I am very supportive of the fact that in this Bill, murder at the end of a relationship is a statutory aggravating factor; there are other recommendations to be looked at and considered to see whether the legislation could be improved in any way, but I am certainly supportive of what is there already.
Another point is MAPPA—the multi-agency public protection arrangements between police, prison and probation—and adding coercion and controlling behaviour to that. I am very supportive of that, but I would have some comments, if you wanted to hear them, about the limitations of what that will achieve. There is also the College of Policing issuing a code of practice about ethical policing, which I obviously welcome, but I have a few comments that relate to improving it. Then there is the issue of police-perpetrated abuse or misconduct. There are provisions in the Bill that address how that will be dealt with if the chief constable does not feel that the outcome of the police tribunal is appropriate. I support those provisions, but I have more concerns about the police and crime commissioner being involved if there are concerns about the chief constable. Those are some of the main points.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Nicole Jacobs: Police-perpetrated domestic abuse related issues—and that means three key things to me. One is being more proactive about removing warrant cards if someone is under investigation for crimes relating to violence against women and girls or domestic abuse. The second is the specified offences that I believe should be listed that would constitute gross misconduct; again, I think they should be defined as domestic abuse, sexual harassment, assault and violence, so-called honour-based abuse, and stalking. The third is stronger provisions in relation to police vetting—requiring that every five years, and ensuring that if there is a change in force, police vetting takes place. Tightening up those provisions is not currently in the Bill and I think it should be.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Baroness Newlove: I was brought in to scrutinise the Victims and Prisoners Bill. What is in this Bill that is not in the Victims and Prisoners Bill is recognising victims of antisocial behaviour. That is why I have written to Ministers. In fact, there will be something going their way on antisocial behaviour. I welcome that we are dealing with antisocial behaviour in the Bill. However, to me it is still about hitting the mark that it should be hitting—recognising victims and the impact of antisocial behaviour. I say that because the police really are the people they go to and they do not make that criminal threshold—joining all the dots together—beforehand.
For me, it is about getting the right priority. It is not about making more enforcement powers for the police, because there are that many pieces of legislation that the toolbox is overflowing; it is about ensuring that the range of powers is used correctly, and that the police are made aware of them. Further down the line, it is also about looking at the appeal route of antisocial behaviour case reviews, which I addressed in my final report, “Living a Nightmare”. That is one of my asks of this Committee: to look at the PCC reviewing the appeal, but also at having an independent person, because it is very much all about people who have looked at it in the first place marking their own homework. My second ask is having the victim impact statement involved in the appeal system. We do it in parole, and we do it in court trials.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Baroness Newlove: That is not an area I work on. I would have to write to the Committee on that. For me, it is about victims of crime per se, so I have no real evidence to answer that. All I can say, from anecdotal evidence, is that self-harm is a big issue in this day and age, and it was highlighted in the Online Safety Bill. I would not like to recommend anything when I do not have the evidence to support it.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Nicole Jacobs: The Clare Wade review stemmed from the Victims’ Commissioner and my office writing to Robert Buckland asking for the review to be undertaken, and it was really welcome. I suppose she was weighing the difference between simply raising sentencing thresholds and having a more nuanced response. What she came up with was a set of recommendations to add what she feels are the key contexts to domestic abuse, which we are seeing in sentencing being chronically overlooked and misunderstood.
What she has recommended does not cherry-pick one or two or three, but says, “If we want a nuanced, really informed approach to understanding domestic homicide review sentencing, we have to look at these in the whole.” One of those is obviously homicide after separation. That is the most common time we see domestic homicides. It is totally reasonable for that to be recognised in this Bill. The trouble is, several things are not. Things like non-fatal strangulation, which is one of the most common ways people are murdered in domestic homicide cases, is not there, nor is overkill—the context of controlling and coercive behaviour. I understand that the Law Commission is consulting on some things, but it seems to me a missed opportunity to not move forward on some of those recommendations, which were so carefully thought through.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Baroness Newlove: In terms of victims and their families, both personally and professionally assumptions are made about them when people do not even understand the victim’s journey. I get annoyed at that. I think this is a very important point, because victims sit there for weeks or months on end, listening to evidence and having no voice at all. Part of the victims code is to have the victim impact statement, and there is the ability to read it out if there is conviction. I think it should be respected that the family have that kind of relationship, because they have listened to that evidence about their loved ones. Personally, I can say that I have sat there for 10 weeks and not been able to say anything.
I also think that you do not know how to judge an offender. They could say that they are coming in the dock and then not play ball. I have seen for myself—evidence shows this—that even through the court trial they will turn their backs, goad you and do everything. If it is still to the judge’s discretion and direction, I would like—I have said this previously—for the judge to own the courtroom if the offender does play in the dock and does not respect the perimeters. Victims’ families are told to respect the perimeters of the courtroom, and the judiciary needs to have that respect. If it happens that they do not want to turn up in dock, a deadline should be put on what is going on. If not, put something in their cell if they are in the court building.
Anecdotally, I used to work in the magistrates courts and we had stipendiary magistrates. You never messed with them. You had to have all your ducks lined up. We would visit the prison cell if they did not want to come down. There is a way of dealing with things, and we have moved on a lot since then—I am talking about many years ago.
Laura Farris
Q
Nicole Jacobs: Because it is a multi-agency arrangement and intelligence is brought into that process, it is extremely important that you have monitoring and supervision of an offender. The nature of that is much more active because you have prison parole and the police working together. We have a long-standing view that more offenders of domestic abuse should be monitored and overseen in that way. The last report from His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation showed that about 75,000 people who have committed domestic abuse are supervised in that way, and it probably could be more, considering our numbers.
As I commented earlier, because conviction rates of coercion and controlling behaviour are relatively low, the provisions are welcome and will add people to that list, but it is not the only way in which we are monitoring and overseeing perpetrators in the community. It is very important, but I suppose it is not everything. If it is in legislation, there is a real case to be made for more consistency force by force about arrangements where people are not meeting thresholds of MAPPA, but equally are posing risk to victims who would not be meeting those thresholds or levels. That needs a lot more focus and attention.
Some forces use something called MATAC—multi-agency tasking and co-ordination—where they bring information in not just from the police but all sorts of places. It was pioneered in Northumbria, and several forces’ areas have adopted that. Other force areas will implement something called the Drive Project, which is quite similar. It is essentially recognising that so many perpetrators of domestic abuse will not have even touched the criminal justice system. Only one in five victims will ever even disclose to the police, yet there are people who cause quite high harm.
Those arrangements are taking in wider information from a variety of sources and deciding their resourcing and tasking. Whether or not that is addressed in legislation, we have a real need in general in England and Wales to have a much more uniform and clear approach as to how that is addressed. We often hear people say, “I want to see a perpetrator register.” Well, what people mean by that is this aim to have proper oversight of perpetrators, and it is not quite as simple as putting someone on a list; it really means undertaking these more meaningful multi-agency exercises. We do not have a very consistent approach just yet. There is obviously excellent practice, but we need to see a more comprehensive practice.
Laura Farris
Q
Nicole Jacobs: To some degree—they certainly would catch the ones who are known to the system. We need to do more to ensure that police are confident in the way that they are investigating coercion and controlling behaviour, and we would want to see that. The Government have certainly made efforts to train police forces. I would think most people would agree that that offence is fairly underutilised at the current time. As that grows, and as improvements are made, you will find more people subject to MAPPA.
The more comprehensive win will be having a consistent approach across all forces so that there are other multi-agency arrangements in place for people who have not had convictions and are not subject to MAPPA but represent a huge risk for victims of domestic abuse. We should distinguish between perpetrators who are well known to the system, in relation to conviction, against whom the powers of MAPPA can be used, and people who are lesser known, for whom there are other ways to mitigate risk. For example, Northumbria has MATAC—multi-agency tasking and co-ordination—and it has said that the majority of the people it is tasking and putting resource into do not have convictions and yet are understood by multi-agency partners to pose high risk. That perhaps just means that they are so good at their perpetration and the fear they impose that there has not been support for prosecution and other things. I suppose what I am trying to get across is that conviction is not the only risk factor to keep in mind; there are many, many more.
Laura Farris
Q
Nicole Jacobs: In cases where the chief constable overrules something, the important thing for me is that provision is in place to ensure it is independent. I understand that it would be irregular, but you must consider the background and history of how police misconduct has been mishandled. The Home Affairs Committee, the Casey review and many other people have laid that out; I am obviously not the only one saying that.
There is a lot of evidence that the way these things have been handled over time, including through the vetting of the misconduct itself, has been far from ideal, and has been deprioritised to the point where many victims of domestic abuse are starting to lose faith in the criminal justice system. I find that very troubling. The police should be the first port of call, and yet the fact that there are so many instances of misconduct leads to a deterioration of our confidence in policing. Certainly, that is the case for victims.
Anything you can do to strengthen that would be helpful. Considering the removal of warrant cards is really important. We can see from many sources that that would be effective. Refuge did a freedom of information request that showed that that happens only about 25% of the time in police forces. There should also be suspension from duties for domestic abuse and sexual violence-related offences. One of the most common reasons for police officers to be called to the attention of the Independent Office for Police Conduct is that it has used its powers to pursue sexual misconduct and sexual violence. There are chronic problems, and we have to be more assertive in this Bill about warrant cards and in specifying offences that constitute gross misconduct if there is a conviction. That seems quite reasonable to me.
The vetting needs so much more care and attention. I think right now it is at 10 years; I would say that it needs to be five years, and certainly it should be every time a police officer changes forces. There are things that we can do that we know will fix the chronic problems. I am less comfortable with the idea of a police and crime commissioner getting involved, in relation to a chief constable. I think it should be a more independent body, such as the IOPC, or the inspectorate, just because police and crime commissioners are elected. That was the discomfort I talked about earlier.
Laura Farris
Q
“Reviews of responses to complaints about anti-social behaviour”.
It is that package of measures. Given your work on that, what could you say about that providing adequate coverage of some of the issues that victims have reported to you in the past?
Baroness Newlove: In an antisocial behaviour case review, first and foremost, we have to ensure the victim understands what an antisocial behaviour case review is. However, for those who sit forward to do the review and appeal through the PCC, there should ideally be a chair who is independent. If the notion now is that the review is merely a tick-box exercise and it feels to that victim that they are not involved—as I just said, there is no victim impact statement—an independent person should look at the overall evidence to come to a better conclusion.
It feels like there is an incestuous ring of people making a decision, who, in the first place, do not get the impact of antisocial behaviour. That is the problem with antisocial behaviour; nobody really gets the impact. I welcome anything that makes victims’ lives better, but you can have as many powers as you want, yet if you do not understand the impact on that victim and on that community, they really do not help the victim get through better in life. It ends up being them investigating their own powers.
Laura Farris
Q
Baroness Newlove: I think it is better, but again, it has to be shown that it is independent. More importantly, it has to have the victim’s voice in there. If you do not listen, you do not have that victim’s voice right through the file, or whatever they call it. It ends up being that you really do not understand the impact on the victim. How can you make a decision when you do not have the victim’s voice in there? That feels very much like you are looking at legislation, how you can tick a box or how the powers that be are using the powers. Most importantly, however, you have to bring the victim along and have that voice in there. Then, you really can make a true decision on how you can absolutely solve the problem.
Laura Farris
Q
Baroness Newlove: I have not specifically looked at that. Looking at all the reviews I have done, I have said outside this role that parenting is the most difficult job anybody can do, but you have to be accountable for the actions.
I have concerns: yes, the age is 10, but there could be other areas in which that person is suffering, such as dyslexia or autism. Also, the parents could be suffering domestic abuse. How do you make them pay that fine, at the end of the day? If you go back to that, we had that kind of language in the riots, where we were going to get the parents and take them out of their homes. For me, there has to be accountability, but how would you get that parent, who is probably suffering from domestic abuse or may have mental health and addiction issues, to fully understand the impact that their child is having? They may need support to rectify that. Also, that child could have other issues.
I can see where you are going from that. I welcome anything, but I am just stepping back a little to consider how that would have an impact on the rest of the family to make sure we can get a better solution.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: Well, according to the Office for National Statistics, it is 2.3 million.
Jess Phillips
And then those that get reported to the police?
Nicole Jacobs: One in five. Sometimes the research says one in six, but we can say one in five.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: Yes.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: That is correct for that provision, which is really why I was making the point about the wider work required. Or, as the Bill progresses, I am sure you will have people who might put forward other offences that ought to be included. However, that is correct, and I suppose that not every dangerous perpetrator of domestic abuse will be subject to MAPPA, because of the fact of the lack of convictions.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: Numbers-wise, it would be modest—
Jess Phillips
It is about 56.
Nicole Jacobs: But I would not be against the principle of that, because I recognise that coercion and controlling behaviour is a known high-risk factor. Some of the policing risk assessments are really geared to understanding that better. There is obviously no harm in doing that, but I suppose that it is just that the ambition of us wanting to monitor and have a lot more active oversight is more geared towards those other programmes on recency, frequency and gravity—the algorithms that police use.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: I would love to see you consider ways that you could have a more active oversight that could be consistent.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: It is usually others.
Jess Phillips
Yes.
Nicole Jacobs: I will send the Committee a report that I just published last week, which is a compilation of findings from 300 domestic homicide reviews. We published four reports: one about children’s social care, one about adult social care, one about health-related recommendations, and one on criminal justice. That might be useful for this discussion because, in that report, you can see the numbers of perpetrators who have committed murder, how many had criminal convictions and what the nature of those recommendations were, so I would be very happy to send that.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: No. The reason that they would not is that those IT systems would not speak to each other, even to know the fact finding within family court, for example. We are doing that; we are going into three court areas and actually looking at the domestic information. We have done a lot of legal academic preparation to do that. It is not even easy to get that from the family court system itself. In other words, that kind of fact-finding information is not quite readily available, even though it would have been found as fact in front of a judge and used, so that would not factor in.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: Not to my knowledge. There was, for example, Project Shield in North Yorkshire where even orders of protection were having to be manually entered into the police national database. People underestimate the extent to which police have all the information they need at their fingertips to understand the whole picture and risk of a perpetrator of domestic abuse, and there is huge scope for improvement there.
The Chair
Do we have any further questions? We have 12 more minutes, if anyone want to take the opportunity.
Jess Phillips
Q
Baroness Newlove: I have not done any specific research on that, but there is probably a synergy of reasons. When I spoke to child sexual abuse victims when I worked on IICSA, I saw that there is a reason for survivorship. They have been made to do things—not because they are criminals, but because they are absolutely fearful for their lives. But I have not done percentage research and, as you know, Jess, I am more of a people person in the sense of really putting it as it is. A lot of victims were writing to me before I came back into this role who felt that that is not being recognised. Through no fault of their own, they have had to turn to things they did not wish to do, and they have turned to substance misuse to get them through the absolute harm they have gone through.
Nicole Jacobs: Again, I can send this to the Committee, but there is a really excellent piece of academic work, recently published in the form of a book, that makes a clear link to the anecdotal things we know, which is that it is related to experiences of domestic abuse as a child and how that impacts behaviour into adolescence, particularly with boys. I think that is something that could be considered.
One thing I was hoping to touch on and make the link to earlier was the extent to which we really struggle with registered social landlords confusing domestic abuse with antisocial behaviour, and others reporting it as noise nuisance and that type of thing. There has been a lot of reform over the last five years in particular to really help registered social landlords disentangle those things, so they are not misinterpreting domestic abuse as antisocial behaviour. That is worth considering in the provisions.
On rough sleeping, St Mungo’s will tell you that some 50% of female rough sleepers are there because of domestic abuse. We have to really think and consider how that impacts particular people in the wider context of some of the provisions of the Bill.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: I think the Ministry of Justice’s own female offender strategy is much more about diversion from prison, so you see women’s centres undertaking a lot of that kind of work, which I think is right. My view is that people who have been involved in crime who are subject to domestic abuse and that abuse is linked to their offending have very little place in prison, full stop. We have to understand the context of the offending and the extent to which doing so would be in the public interest. I would like to see them not in prison in general, but being supported in the community.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I would like to thank our witnesses, Baroness Newlove and Nicole Jacobs, for their evidence and for their time. That brings us to the end of the morning session, and the Committee will meet again at 2 pm here in the Boothroyd Room to continue taking oral evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)
Criminal Justice Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 12th December 2023
(1 year ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Criminal Justice Bill 2023-24 View all Criminal Justice Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2023 - (12 Dec 2023)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. We will begin this afternoon’s session by hearing oral evidence from Harvey Redgrave and Rebecca Bryant OBE, who is with us virtually. We have until 2.45 pm for this panel, so please keep your eyes on the clock. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Harvey Redgrave: Hi, and thanks for having me. I am Harvey Redgrave, chief executive of Crest Advisory, which is a specialist crime, policing and criminal justice organisation. I am also a senior fellow at the Tony Blair Institute, where I lead on home affairs policy.
Rebecca Bryant: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Rebecca Bryant. I am the chief executive of Resolve. Resolve is a membership organisation focused on community safety and antisocial behaviour. Our members are housing providers, local authorities, police forces and police and crime commissioners.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Good afternoon to both our witnesses; thank you for your time. Rebecca Bryant, you mentioned Resolve’s long-running interest in antisocial behaviour. Could you give us your views on the clauses in the Bill that relate to antisocial behaviour and whether there is anything you would add to them?
Rebecca Bryant: Thank you for the question. First of all, as a membership organisation, the views are of our members. We have spent time talking to them since the Bill was published. Quite a few different views have been put forward by our members and by Resolve ourselves as an organisation. Some of the clauses we agree with, and some of them we do not. I can take you through each particular one.
We absolutely agree with the clause on creating a duty for police and crime commissioners to promote awareness of the antisocial behaviour case review. I am quite happy to elaborate on that. On extending the power to implement dispersal orders to local authorities, our members generally agree that dispersal powers should remain with the police rather than being spread to local authorities, and there are very specific reasons for that. The police are required to enforce any breach of the dispersal order, and really these powers should be seen as a partnership response rather than a sole agency response.
When a dispersal order is being put in place, that needs to be considered by the local authority and with it as a partnership across the board through the community safety partnership. There should be an understanding as well that the police are on the ground and out on patrol 24/7, so are in a much better position to be able to use that power. They also have the skills and knowledge to use it.
That takes me on to extending the time frame for a dispersal order from 48 hours to 72 hours. All our members that we consulted are in favour of the extension of time. Our members are not in favour of extending the public spaces protection orders to the police because local authorities are very skilled in using them—that is where the knowledge lies. Significant expertise and a lot of consultation with the public are required before you put one in place. Rather than extending it, it should be used in partnership through the community safety partnership.
In relation to lowering the age for issuing a community protection notice from 16 to 10 and increasing the upper fine limit from £100 to £500 for breaches, members are mixed, particularly on the lowering of the age to 10. A lot of work goes into early intervention and prevention and how we deal with young people on the path to causing antisocial behaviour. Penalising young people at age 10 for antisocial behaviour by fining their parents if there was to be a breach is quite a significant step and flies in the face of our approach to early intervention and prevention, which uses positive mentoring and youth interventions for young people.
On extending the time frame for applying for closure orders from 48 hours to 72 hours after serving the notice, everybody was in favour, but they would like to see more explicit guidance and support around magistrates courts. On giving the closure power to housing providers, everybody who is a housing provider is absolutely in support of that; Resolve has been lobbying for that for some time now, particularly as it is a very good tool to use for more serious types of antisocial behaviour, such as cuckooing and exploiting vulnerable people.
In terms of the power of arrest for all breaches of civil injunctions, on the whole most of our members are not particularly swayed by that because the power of arrest is a very serious tool. It requires the police to conduct that power of arrest, and it will mean significant resource implications for the police. Not only that, but we would have to get past the courts on proportionality and reasonableness for the power of arrest to be attached to any clause. It would also significantly impact on the court system, particularly if someone was arrested. They would have to be presented to court the next day, so there would be issues around cells and also the management of community expectations once we had got an injunction with the power of arrest. For the CSOs who enforce breaches of community protection notices, it was felt that this would be positive because having more resources with which to be able to enforce those breaches would be welcome.
Alex Norris
Q
Rebecca Bryant: Yes. I would like to bust a few myths, if that is possible while giving evidence. There is a perception in the media and the community that young people are the main perpetrators of antisocial behaviour when, in fact, they are not: the vast majority of antisocial behaviour is perpetrated by adults.
In focusing on young people, we should be thinking about how they are impacted by antisocial behaviour. They are often victims. You will have seen terrible films on TikTok and social media outlets of fights, violence and aggression. That means that those young people are victims rather than perpetrators as a whole. We certainly need to recognise that if we can get in early and use the early intervention and prevention tools available to us to stop the antisocial behaviour or stop those young people becoming antisocial, we will be able to reduce antisocial behaviour as a whole.
Antisocial behaviour is often a precursor to more serious crime, so if we can use our opportunity—I call it a “golden moment”—to intervene with a young person, perhaps with an alternative trusted adult from outside the home, and work with them to understand the impact of the behaviour that they may be perpetrating, that in itself does not fall into the idea that we should be reducing the CPN to the age of 10.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Laura Farris)
Q
Harvey Redgrave: I am in favour of this measure. I think it was used relatively effectively under the last Labour Government in relation to prolific offenders. [Interruption.] Sorry, do I need to speak a bit louder?
The Chair
Please try to speak up a bit.
Harvey Redgrave: I am in favour of the measure. It is right to test more offenders, particularly prolific offenders, many of whom are driven by addiction. The more we can divert offenders into treatment to address their offending behaviour, the better. I think there needs to be a broader look at how we deal with prolific offenders who recycle around the system sometimes tens or hundreds of times before they stop their offending. There used to be something called the prolific and other priority offenders programme, which was disbanded along with the whole infrastructure around it.
There is a need to place this drug-testing measure within a broader set of interventions that look at how we grip prolific offenders, how judges are able to defer sentencing, and how offenders are able to be rehabilitated and dealt with much earlier on rather than them serving short sentences, coming out, reoffending and going back in at great expense to the taxpayer.
Laura Farris
Q
The other question I wanted to ask is about Crest Advisory’s role in Baroness Casey’s review—again, if you were not personally involved in that, you can correct me. I think Crest Advisory played some role in supporting her review into the misconduct issues in the Met police, and there are two provisions in this Bill that at least partially respond to that. I would like to look at clause 73, which is on ethical policing and the duty of candour. In the light of your work with Baroness Casey, do you think it is important, and if so why? What does it answer in relation to her findings about failings in the Metropolitan police?
Harvey Redgrave: To clarify, some of my team at Crest Advisory were seconded in to support Baroness Casey on her review, but obviously she led the review and wrote it herself. It is really important that we look at the ethics and systems around misconduct within policing. There is a crisis of public confidence in policing at the moment, particularly among women. The Commissioner of the Met has spoken repeatedly about wanting to have more say and control over getting rid of officers when there are cases of misconduct, and I think the Government have acted on some of that.
I support the measure, but I would argue that there is a case for going even further and looking at the whole system around vetting and how that takes place within policing, and the system of who really upholds the professional standards within policing. Which body do we hold responsible—the College of Policing, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, or the Home Office? It feels to me like there is a slight lack of clarity at the moment about where the buck stops on some of this at a national level, with each force able to adopt slightly different practices.
Laura Farris
Q
Harvey Redgrave: I think that it is helpful and is a welcome step, but I am not sure that, in isolation, it will be enough to bring about the kind of culture change that Baroness Casey believes is necessary, within not just the Met but policing as a whole.
Laura Farris
Q
Harvey Redgrave: It comes back to the question of whether the chief constable should have more discretion over being able to hire and fire people, and to be able to get rid of people they are unhappy with. We have created systems and processes over the last 20 or 30 years that have taken some of that discretion away. It is a balance, and we need proper professional standards to be upheld by the College of Policing. In general, I think it a good thing for there to be greater discretion for chief constables to be able to act when they believe there is misconduct within their force.
Laura Farris
Q
We heard from the Crown Prosecution Service this morning, and it said that it did not think such an offence was necessary because the mechanics of an assault charge apply anyway—obviously, with actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm, if that should arise. There is also a statutory aggravating factor for assaulting a retail worker. Do you have a view on this? If you do, could you set out what it is and why?
Harvey Redgrave: Shoplifting is a real concern and we need some deterrents in the system, but I am not sure that we get those deterrents through harsher sentencing. A bigger problem is whether we are catching offenders, charging them, and convicting them. All the evidence shows that for this type of offending, it is swiftness and certainty that deter rather than severity. Not many shoplifters are thinking about aggravating factors or how long they are going to spend in prison.
Laura Farris
Q
Harvey Redgrave: In general, the Bill probably focuses too much on sentence lengths and not enough on what is happening at the front end, around the police’s ability to catch, detain and bring offenders to justice. That is where I think the real gap is.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
Q
Rebecca, thank you for joining us this afternoon. In response to the shadow Minister, you raised questions about reducing the minimum age for community protection notices from 16 to 10, which is enclosed within clause 67 of the Bill. Do you agree that bringing 10 to 15-year-olds into the scope of CPNs provides an opportunity to halt a path into criminality that might otherwise occur? Combined with that, there is an opportunity to make other interventions to try to prevent the young person from getting into crime.
Rebecca Bryant: It is using a hammer to crack a nut. For 10 and 11-year-olds in particular who are on the cusp of causing antisocial behaviour, there are many other tools available to partners. I am not necessarily thinking about fining parents, because a lot of the young people who are involved in antisocial behaviour come from more deprived backgrounds, and breaching and fining is not going to enable change.
What we are looking for is a change of behaviour in the longer term. Yes, we are looking to prevent in the first instance, but then we look for change. Being able to engage with a young person and their parents by putting in positive mentoring and other youth interventions would surely have longer term success than a community protection notice would have. Also, there is a community protection warning before a notice; that kind of warning and discussion between a parent, a child and the authorities, which could be the housing provider, the local authority or the police, has much more impact when you are offering a positive intervention.
Chris Philp
Q
Rebecca Bryant: More extreme antisocial behaviour is often a criminal offence, so potentially there would be criminality and therefore a charge. That may be welcome in some cases, but not a blanket reduction to say that anybody from the age of 10 could have a CPN, which could then lead to breach and fine. As I say, from our members’ perspective, that seems too young.
Chris Philp
Q
Rebecca Bryant: First, our members absolutely welcome the repeal of the Vagrancy Act. It is outdated and clunky, and has not been fit for purpose for many years. The replacement powers suggested in the Bill are generally welcomed by our members. I think there is some movement around more community rehabilitation. The people we are talking about here are particularly vulnerable members of society who have been through significant trauma or who have significant mental health problems, drugs and alcohol addiction, and their behaviours and rough sleeping are due to those underlying facts. Thinking about community rehabilitation and support to change is as important as moving people on and creating the powers to do that.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Q
Harvey Redgrave: No, it needs to be attached to more resourcing.
Jess Phillips
Q
Harvey Redgrave: I am assuming there is an impact assessment and a cost that has been attached to the Bill.
Jess Phillips
Q
Harvey Redgrave: I do not think it would be able to happen if you took current resource levels as the baseline. Some piloting is already going on in some forces, I think. I do not know how much of that has been allocated in future years.
Jess Phillips
Q
Harvey Redgrave: No. It is a good step forward, but not sufficient.
Jess Phillips
Q
Harvey Redgrave: I would agree, yes.
Jess Phillips
Q
Harvey Redgrave: Sorry—I would agree with the premise of your question.
Jess Phillips
Q
Harvey Redgrave: If I could also add one further thing on violence against women and girls—
Jess Phillips
Please feel free.
Harvey Redgrave: One of the good developments that has taken place in the last couple of years is Betsy Stanko’s work on rape and Operation Soteria, which is now being rolled out across the country. As you know, it takes a new approach to the way that rape is investigated. There is a very good case for widening that to look at all violence against women and girls, because some of the same principles apply. I would look very closely at whether that requires legislation, and if it does not, at what is required to broaden that approach.
Jess Phillips
Q
Harvey Redgrave: Potentially.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Q
Rebecca Bryant: Yes, it is.
Vicky Ford
It is not a unanimous view from your members.
Rebecca Bryant: No, it is not a unanimous view. There are some mixed views. Some people represented by some organisations suggested reducing the age to 14 rather than 10, particularly when we are talking about the 10 to 13 age group, who are particularly young. Yes, of course they have criminal responsibility in this country, but we are talking about antisocial behaviour here rather than—
Vicky Ford
Q
Rebecca Bryant: Yes, that is what I am saying.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Q
Harvey Redgrave: I suppose it is more about saying where I think the priority should be. I do not have a particular problem with increasing sentences for shoplifters; it is just that I do not think that that is where the biggest challenge is.
Stephen Metcalfe
Q
Harvey Redgrave: I think it is fine; I do not have a problem with it. I am broadly supportive of it, but I do not think it will act as a particular deterrent when we are not catching enough shoplifters to begin with. That would be my slightly—
Stephen Metcalfe
Q
Harvey Redgrave: Yes.
Stephen Metcalfe
Q
Rebecca Bryant: No.
Stephen Metcalfe
Q
Rebecca Bryant: Yes, I think so. When I say it was not unanimous, I am saying that a few members said that they agreed with 10. The vast majority said that they did not.
Stephen Metcalfe
Q
Rebecca Bryant: I would suggest that if the behaviour were serious enough to warrant a CPN at the age of 10, there would be other significant issues within the family environment. You would be looking at a huge range of interventions. Unless a particular scenario is presented, it is quite difficult to say what type of intervention you would try in order to reduce or stop the antisocial behaviour, but I do not want to get away from the point that early intervention and prevention work. If we invest in early intervention and prevention, you would expect antisocial behaviour cases involving young people to reduce. The enforcement side would therefore become less necessary.
Stephen Metcalfe
Q
Rebecca Bryant: I think it is unnecessary, and I think you will find it is very rarely used. There are other enforcement tools and powers available for young people that are also rarely used, because the focus of the sector is very much on early intervention, prevention, restorative justice and community remedies. There are all sorts of other tools that are perhaps more appropriate, particularly for dealing with young people who are on the cusp of causing antisocial behaviour.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Q
Rebecca Bryant: Look at how we respond to antisocial behaviour. It is a partnership response—things like Supporting Families, which used to be Troubled Families, and those types of interventions and support provided to the whole family, which are trauma-informed and understanding of adverse childhood experiences, and recognise that behaviour is often a symptom of something happening within the family environment. We should be taking a whole-family approach, rather than looking at a young person, a 10-year-old, as an individual on their own. There is something there about the drivers of why that young 10-year-old is behaving in the way that they are. It is much more complex than focusing on a specific incident perpetrated by a child at the age of 10.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Rebecca Bryant: That is a fair assessment. Civil enforcement powers do not enforce; all they really do is set out very clearly how society expects individuals to behave. There is an expectation when that order is given that the person is able to comply. If a young person aged 10 or 11 is perpetrating and demonstrating this type of behaviour, are you setting them up to fail if you are not thinking about different sorts of interventions and support? You could think of supporting the parent to become a better parent, able to set boundaries and support longer term change, or using other trusted adults and other types of intervention and remedy to support that young person to change.
The Chair
Thank you. It looks like there are no further questions from Members. I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Andy Marsh and Andy Cooke gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Andy Cooke: Good afternoon. I am Andy Cooke, His Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary and His Majesty’s chief inspector of fire and rescue services.
Andy Marsh: Hello, I am Andy Marsh, the chief exec and chief constable of the College of Policing of England and Wales.
Alex Norris
Q
Andy Marsh: I am of the view that there has not been enough rigour in the way in which vetting responsibilities and duties have been conducted. I am also of the view—significantly because of high-profile cases, but also because of inspection work by Andy Cooke’s team—that not only have vetting processes been inadequate but they have not been complied with. The College has done two things as a start: we have rewritten the code of practice for vetting to introduce new standards, and we are about to launch a new authorised professional practice for vetting that will set new, more rigorous standards across England and Wales that address all of the areas for improvement addressed in Mr Cooke’s inspection report.
Is that enough? In my opinion it is not enough. When the spotlight moves on from this important area of safeguarding the public and the reputation of policing, will chiefs and police forces continue to apply the scrutiny and effort that is going into this at the moment? It is my intention—I have expressed this—for this to be an area of service provision that is high-risk and which the College proposes to license or authorise in each force vetting unit each year. There will be training and support for personnel, and there are good people in those force vetting units, but in my plan, if they do not achieve the required standards, they will not be allowed to do vetting. It will have to be done by another police force.
Alex Norris
Q
Andy Marsh: I am unlikely to put a new time limit on the period of vetting, because I think in the 21st century when people—I am talking about all employees and police officers—commit a misdemeanour or when something occurs that throws into doubt their vetting status, that happens in real time, and our vetting systems should be good enough to pick them up in real time as well. We cannot wait for periods of time.
I used to be responsible in England and Wales for firearms licensing, and that period I was responsible for saw a shift in doctrine from revisiting a licence every three or five years to revisiting someone’s safety to hold a weapon 24/7, 365 days a year. Our approach in principle, while complying with the code of practice and the authorised professional practice on vetting, is that there will be time thresholds for hard stops on renewal, but in my opinion and assessment, there is an expectation that vetting should be under constant review.
Alex Norris
Q
Andy Marsh: I do.
Alex Norris
Q
Andy Cooke: I am fully supportive of the College’s desire to license vetting officers to practise. As you are well aware, the vetting inspection we conducted not too long ago had more recommendations than any inspection previously done. It showed policing in a pretty poor light. Some forces were doing okay, but overall it was not sufficient to protect the public or the reputation of policing. If policing cannot be sure it has the right people in it, that is a sad indictment on the force or forces across the country. There needs to be a continued focus on this area of policing. Licence to practise will assist in that, and the inspectorate will continue to look at these issues right across the forces across England and Wales.
Alex Norris
Q
Andy Cooke: It is a power that will need to be closely monitored, but it is a power I am supportive of. The ability to recover stolen property in such circumstances is a real issue if policing is going to catch the people it needs to catch, particularly around the likes of mobile phone theft, which is endemic across large parts of the country. The inspectorate will obviously keep a close eye on it as part of the legitimacy of policing and the ethical context in which policing is conducted. It will form part of future inspections when necessary.
Chris Philp
Q
Andy Marsh, can I continue the line of questioning about the warrantless power of entry where it is necessary to recover stolen goods when there is no time to get a warrant? Andy Cooke just mentioned that the inspectorate would keep a close eye on whether that power, if granted by Parliament, is being exercised properly. Could you confirm for the Committee’s benefit whether you would in due course, if this were passed, produce some authorised professional practice to make sure that police forces exercise the power in a way that is responsible?
Andy Marsh: Minister Philp, as you are aware I am strongly supportive of police officers conducting all reasonable lines of inquiry to catch criminals and keep communities safe. It caused me great frustration as a chief if ever a letter landed on my desk to say, “My bike’s on sale on eBay, my daughter’s phone is in a house and you said you couldn’t do anything”.
We have already started our plans to hardwire this new power into our guidance, our training and our standard setting to do our very best, along with working in partnership with His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services to ensure that we use this power consistently in two respects. I do not want to see circumstances where the power should be used, where it is not and people could be caught and property returned; and I certainly do not want it to be used in such a way that would undermine confidence in policing. As in many things in policing, we need to get this just right. The College has a fundamental role in achieving consistency and getting it just right.
Chris Philp
Q
Andy Marsh: I do.
Chris Philp
Q
Andy Marsh: I am.
Chris Philp
Q
Andy Marsh: It should be a very significant moment in policing. The first code of ethics was put in place in 2014. I could explain to the Committee why we think we are able to improve on that, but we have to talk about why it is going to make a big difference. The College is able to put a code of practice in place which requires a chief constable to have due regard.
We wanted to make that code of practice as strong as possible around a duty of candour, but there were many other things in it—for example, a duty on a chief constable to ensure ethical behaviour in a force, through their processes, policies, reward recognition, promotion, application of the victims code, challenging unprofessional behaviour, looking after staff welfare, dealing with misconduct and vetting properly.
Even before we get to the duty of candour, which is very strong, this is the strongest lever the College of Policing can pull in order to bring about cultural change around standards in policing. We will be working with the launch of the second two parts of the code in January, which is different from the legal code. We will be working on supporting policing over a change programme to secure that cultural change, over many months—possibly years.
Chris Philp
Q
As you know, we made assaulting a public-facing worker a statutory aggravating factor for other assault offences in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. We have already created a separate offence of assaulting emergency workers. Some people now say that we should have a separate offence for assaulting a retail worker, to give it more prominence. Others say, “Well, where do you draw the line?” You could have an offence for assaulting a teacher, a local councillor—and so it might go on. What is your opinion about whether there is any use in creating that separate, stand-alone offence?
Andy Cooke: I think I am right in saying it is an offence in Scotland, but I do not know how much that has resulted in a change in offending behaviour. I have not particularly looked at that point. It is a question of where you draw the line. The key issue is not whether a new offence should be constructed for assaulting a shop worker. It is more about how well, or not, policing is dealing with assaults, full stop; and how well police officers are dealing with the offence of shoplifting and the ancillary offences that sometimes go with that. I am aware that the National Police Chiefs’ Council is doing an awful lot of work around this at the moment, working with the PCC for Sussex and yourself, Minister.
Certainly, there has been a large reduction in the number of positive outcomes or detections for shoplifting over the last five or six years. That is not acceptable. It is in line with an awful lot of the other core charge and outcome rates that we have seen across policing. This is more about ensuring that the police across England and Wales treat this more seriously, particularly where there are aggravated offences alongside, such as assault. That is what Chief Constable Amanda Blakeman is attempting to do on behalf of the National Police Chiefs’ Council. Rather long-windedly, to come back to your initial question, without seeing the evidence for how that reduces offences or increases detections, I would not necessarily be in favour of a separate offence.
Chris Philp
Q
Andy Cooke: All those issues will be captured by the police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy inspections that we do every two years on every police force across England and Wales. We will look at reasonable lines of inquiry particularly and at the overall outcome rates—not just charge rates, because the out-of-court disposals are important as well, as it is whatever is the best sanction to fit the individual and the community at the end of the day. We look right across that to ensure that policing is doing what it should be doing, as we do every week of the year, and will continue to do so.
This is a really important issue for me, because these are crimes that strike at the heart of communities and neighbourhoods. It is really important that policing gets confidence and trust back. Whether that is the confidence and trust of shop workers or across neighbourhoods and communities, whichever way it is, a large part of getting that confidence and trust back is by the police showing themselves to be effective in what they do. The police need to increase their efforts to do so.
Chris Philp
Q
Andy Marsh: The College is supporting policing with guidance around dealing with retail crime, particularly persistent offenders. I agree with everything that has been said: much more needs to be done in order to deal with this crime type.
In relation to the specific offence, I can see that there are two purposes to it. The first is that it might well act as a deterrent. The College of Policing holds the evidence base for policing. We cannot categorically tell you there is an evidence base for deterrence, but that would be one of the reasons for putting it in place. I think the second, more important reason is for Parliament to signal its concern about a particularly disruptive crime that damages the fabric of our communities and society. This sends out a signal that the police need to do better. I am supportive of the proposal.
Chris Philp
Q
Moving on to a proposal contained in clause 21, which relates to giving police access to driver licence records—particularly the photograph—which currently are only readily accessible for road traffic purposes. The idea is that they can be used for facial recognition searches, where an image is retrieved from a crime scene from CCTV. That might include a shoplifting offence. This would make the DVLA driving licence database searchable by the police, in the same way that other databases are, including for facial recognition purposes. In your view, both Andy Marsh and Andy Cooke, would that assist the police in investigations? Is that a measure you would support?
Andy Marsh: I am supportive.
Andy Cooke: Yes, I support it. What goes alongside that is ensuring that the actions of the police on facial recognition are ethical and lawful. I am a big supporter of facial recognition used in the right way, and I think that opening up that database would benefit the detection of crime.
Chris Philp
Q
Do you agree with the Met Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, in saying that this measure will help chief constables better to manage their workforce and root out officers guilty of misconduct where appropriate and where necessary?
Andy Cooke: It would certainly help in relation to that. At the moment, the only recourse is judicial review, which as we know can be exceptionally expensive and difficult, so I see no problem at all in having that right of appeal for a chief constable.
Andy Marsh: The code of ethics, which we have just been talking about, puts a responsibility—in fact, a duty—on a chief constable to discharge their responsibilities around standards, conduct and behaviour; and I have been in a position, as a chief, where I have not been able to do that because ultimately I haven’t had the decision on who I ultimately have serving alongside me as a police officer. They are not employees—they are servants of the Crown. I have found that to be a deeply unsatisfactory position, so I am supportive of this.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: Yes, I do. That is a periodic hard stop, let us say, where there is a full review, but there should be a number of different control measures, both automated data searches and a duty—a responsibility to report and self-report—that will occur in real time between those vetting periods.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: Whichever timeframe you chose, you could see reasons why it wouldn’t be right.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: Ten years is the current one. I think to change that without massively increasing the capacity of vetting units would be to, let us say, write a cheque they couldn’t cash.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: If you were to legislate then the police would have to find the money, and it is often—
Jess Phillips
And it is currently not available.
Andy Marsh: Difficult choices.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: I would say, “What is the best way of ensuring a trusted, ethical workforce that actually is enforcing highly frequent—I would debate highly frequent—more frequent, hard-stop vettings which would be very costly, with back-office capability?” That might, in my opinion, not be the best way of doing it. I would rather move to a more agile, 21st-century—
Jess Phillips
Database, AI and so on.
Andy Marsh: Yes. So many of the searches that are required for vetting can be put into robotic processes, with ultimately the human being making the decision at the end.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: To directly answer your question, I don’t know. Possibly not.
Jess Phillips
The answer is no. I do know.
Andy Marsh: But actually, if you had a multiple domestic abuser, I am pretty confident that they would be flagging on other systems.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: Excepting that.
Jess Phillips
Okay. Excepting the four in five that don’t come forward.
Andy Marsh: I take your point.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: Yes.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: Will you permit me a little commentary, rather than a yes to that?
Jess Phillips
Go for it, mate.
Andy Marsh: I will tell you an anecdote, which I think will explain why this is dangerous. People can use the police complaints system for reasons other than simply securing justice and fairness for having been treated unfairly. As chief constable of Avon and Somerset, I became aware of two reports that I had in fact—and you will be shocked by this—raped the police and crime commissioner, Sue Mountstevens. I certainly had not, and the lady reporting that was in a mental ill health institution, but the crime recording rules required the police force to record that there was a rape, and I was named as a suspect. I would have thought that it would be farcical, wouldn’t it, for me to be suspended under such circumstances, given that there was not a grain of truth in that? There is a danger—
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: Fairness and justice are for everyone, particularly victims of violence against women and girls; if you look at everything I have said and done in my career, you will see that that is what I genuinely believe. However, I believe that an automatic suspension would be swinging the pendulum way too far. I have given you a very simple example, which is of course ridiculous. What I have learned through 37 years in policing is that there are many, many different shades of ambiguity around situations.
Jess Phillips
I too will give you—
Andy Marsh: Very rarely do we find right and wrong.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: That is shocking and disgraceful, and it should never have been allowed to happen.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: In the circumstances that you just described, of course. But I will say to this Committee that I think each case should be treated on its merits, with a very low threshold for suspension.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: I can write to you with that information, but I am afraid that I do not have it to hand.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: I do not think I said that I was confident that all the powers in the Bill could be implemented. I was answering the question about traceable property and the power to gain entry—that was the element that I was confident about.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: I am supportive of the measures in the Bill. Some will undoubtedly come with a requirement to increase the resource.
Jess Phillips
Such as?
Andy Marsh: The drugs testing would be a good example. I do not believe that there is currently a latent capacity waiting to do that.
Jess Phillips
There is currently not the capacity available to do that.
Andy Marsh: No.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Q
Andy Marsh: Well since you make the observation, I am not sure, as a police officer, that most police officers would agree that the standards of conduct in Parliament are necessarily higher than the standards of conduct for a police officer—if you don’t mind me saying.
Mark Garnier
Q
Andy Marsh: The College of Policing is responsible for a number of different products to support the professional standards that are maintained within policing. In relation to violence against women and girls, we conducted a super-complaint review in partnership with the Independent Office for Police Conduct and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, and we found a number of weaknesses and flaws in the way that, for example, allegations of domestic abuse against police officers were dealt with.
We are working very hard to tighten up those shortcomings and make improvements. In fact, the lead for the violence against women and girls taskforce, Maggie Blyth, is now working as my deputy and using all the levers at the disposal of the college to hardwire those standards into the way we go about our business. I would challenge any suggestion that we have a soft attitude to violence against women and girls.
Mark Garnier
Q
I wanted to follow on from Minister Philp’s questions earlier about powers of entry, because I was fascinated by your response. You mentioned that you might see that somebody obviously has an iPhone in their house—it has been stolen and then found on the Find My iPhone app, so there is very hard evidence that it is definitely there, but a police officer cannot do anything about that. You mentioned similarly a bicycle that could be for sale—a daughter’s bicycle for sale on eBay, for instance. You talked about how you would give guidance to police officers on how they go about enforcing this, but I came away slightly more confused; this is more me as a layman, trying to understand how you go about doing your business.
What struck me is that at the one end of the scale through the Find My iPhone app, you are looking directly at a bleep that says, “This phone is in the front bedroom of this bloke’s house in Walthamstow” or wherever—other constituencies are available. You know for a fact that it is there because the electronic signature is there. If someone has a bicycle up on eBay, it is probably there because that is where the person is advertising it from, but you do not necessarily know for sure. At the other end of the scale, you have a hunch that somebody may have some stolen goods in their house, but you would obviously then get a search warrant. If you are writing the guidance, how do you find the point at which one side is very clearly, and the other is very clearly not, eligible for the powers of entry?
Andy Marsh: There is a continuum of reasonable grounds and belief, which is written into this proposed legislation, that is actually very strong. It is about as strong as it gets in the judgment of a police officer. We will give forces written guidance, probably in authorised professional practice, and we will give them material on which they can be trained face to face in the classroom and material that can be used online.
Without a doubt, there will be some scenarios that will need to be debated among the groups of police officers engaging in professional development. We will also put this in the initial training curriculum. I am sure, given my confidence that we can introduce some guidance and training that would ensure consistency, that we will see a testing, through the judicial process, of what that belief actually means. At some stage, I am pretty confident that we will end up with a consistent interpretation of what it means under different circumstances.
Mark Garnier
Q
Andy Marsh: It is my job, through the college, to ensure consistency. Within a bandwidth—Mr Cooke’s inspection reports show this for pretty much any aspect of policing—you will see forces that do more of something and less of something. Actually, it is my job to ensure that the good practice from the inspections conducted by HMIC is fed back into our guidance.
We have a practice bank which turns that good practice into examples on our website—I would welcome you all looking at that—for a range of things. That will be one of the ways in which we help forces interpret this. But I would not subscribe to any suggestion that it will be the wild west out there, and that you will have one force doing something completely different from another.
Mark Garnier
Q
Andy Cooke, there will be a number of people who are going to be worried that the police may take advantage of these powers in order to get around the trouble of getting a search warrant. How would you reassure my constituents that that is not going to be the case and that we can be confident that this is going to be used for the legitimate reasons, which I am sure Andy Marsh will lay out? How can we be confident that that is not going to be broken?
Andy Cooke: I think the first stage is the fact that it is an inspector’s written authority to do it, and it can initially be given verbally, but then the inspector has to put the name to that action and fully understand what the reasonable belief is to ensure that to happen.
Secondly, we will consider this as part of our inspection regime. When we look at the legitimacy of policing and at the powers of policing, we focus on stop and search and on use of force. We focus on the legitimacy of the powers that the police are using in any particular way. As this is a new power as well, if it is passed by Parliament, it will get particular attention from ourselves.
Mark Garnier
Q
Andy Cooke: I am confident it is the right thing to do and the right law to pass. Will mistakes be made? Of course they will. Police officers are human like everyone else. Is there a danger of it being misused in a very small number of cases? Potentially—but that is the same for any power that policing has, which makes it so important that the right people come into policing.
Laura Farris
Q
Andy Marsh: To explain the process, when a complaint is raised, internally and externally, the chief constable will have a delegated appropriate authority, which tends to be the deputy chief constable. They will have a pretty much weekly meeting, but sometimes it is a real-time daily meeting if something crops up that they need to consider.
The first thing that would happen is that a complaint would reach a threshold of gross misconduct or, indeed, criminal. Once it has reached that threshold, the deputy chief constable—the delegated appropriate authority—needs to make a decision about what should happen to that person. Should they be suspended? Can they continue with their duties? Should they engage in some degree of protected-type duty? What I can say, from my experience of working with police forces across England and Wales, is that the threshold and the tolerance before suspension has dropped substantially.
Laura Farris
Q
Andy Marsh: No, I am not expressing it clearly, because if it would appear to be a substantial complaint—a complaint which would undermine the trust and confidence of the public should that officer remain serving—then they should be suspended. Actually, I can reassure you, in all the cases that I am aware of and that I look at where there are allegations of violence against women and girls, I see a very low threshold for suspension, so if I have misled you at all, I am sorry.
Laura Farris
Q
Andy Marsh: Then they are very likely to be suspended, and I am really happy to write to the Committee and share the guidance and information—
Laura Farris
Q
Andy Marsh: It is very low. If I was accused of any form of domestic abuse, verbal or physical, or coercive control, I can guarantee you that I would be suspended.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Andy Marsh: In explaining this, I am in no way seeking to justify a lack of attention, but when a call is made to a police control room, they will triage it and they will use something called a threat, harm and risk matrix. If the offender has left the scene and no one is at immediate risk, that is unlikely to secure an immediate deployment. There is more likely to be a follow-up investigation. The retail crime action plan and guidance on our website, and all the focus on the use of images and facial recognition and on persistent offenders, is bringing a much sharper focus to an area of standards and police response that has slipped to an unacceptably low level.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Andy Marsh: Yes, that is very often the case. For example, if on the one hand you had an incident of shoplifting where the offender had left the scene—let’s say the items stolen were less than £50—but on the other hand you had a report of a domestic violence incident or some antisocial behaviour happening on the street right now, those two calls would be prioritised above the shoplifting.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Andy Marsh: When you look at the changes in crime type over the last decade, we have seen a very significant rise in what I would call complex crime and vulnerability. The answer is that the police need to be able to respond to complex crime and vulnerability, and they need to be able to secure the confidence of the public in their ability to deal with shoplifting. I am a big supporter of neighbourhood policing. We intend next year to introduce a professionalising neighbourhood policing programme, which will give neighbourhood officers, for example, not only the training and skills to deal with shoplifting, but the new powers on antisocial behaviour to keep their communities safe.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Andy Cooke: No, the law is not different. The aggravating factor is that it is inside your house, not in a public space. People may consider that one is worse than the other, but at the end of the day the offence is the same, unless there is a weapon involved, as it obviously becomes a different offence after that—in private and in public—but both are equally serious.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Andy Cooke: The law would not necessarily say so. It would depend on the circumstances, on the weapons used and on whether it was a public or a private place. An open shop is, to a great extent, seen as a public place. The point I am trying to make is that an assault on a shop worker in a shop is a serious issue, and policing needs to do better to respond to these issues. I do not think there is any chief constable in the country who would disagree with that.
You asked if it was a resource issue. If there were more police officers, then they would be able to respond to more issues. Part of it is around prioritisation; and chief constables are responsible for the prioritisation that they choose. Have chief constables across the board got that prioritisation right? In my view, no, because a lot of the neighbourhood crimes we see—the thefts, car crime, burglaries, robberies—for some time have not been given sufficient credence, nor sufficiently tackled, as we have seen from the very low charge and disposal rates.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Andy Cooke: I understand fully the point you are making. I think it might strengthen the response from the police, as opposed to strengthening the law. The question of whether there should be a separate offence for teachers or other people in the community has been asked already. There are enough laws to deal with this. It is the response from policing that needs to improve. The response from some of the retailers themselves—that is, the bigger retailers, who can afford to put more money into this—also needs to improve.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank our witnesses for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel. Thank you very much, the two Andys.
Examination of Witness
Dame Vera Baird KC gave evidence.
The Chair
We now hear oral evidence from Dame Vera Baird, former Solicitor General and former Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales. For this panel we have until 3.50 pm. Could the witness please introduce herself, for the record?
Dame Vera Baird: I am Vera Baird. As the Chair has just recited, that is my background. I am very pleased to be here; thanks for the invitation.
The Chair
I just gave the very briefest background.
Dame Vera Baird: Well, I’ve lived a long time—let’s be careful.
Alex Cunningham
Q
You are aware that the Victims and Prisoners Bill is still going through Parliament; it is hoped that it will be improved somewhat in the Lords. Can you offer a general comment on how you see this Bill providing additional solace for victims?
Dame Vera Baird: I think there are some bits of it that are good and perhaps will be very helpful to victims. The real problem with the Bill, if I may be really clear about it, is that it does not really contribute to solving the key criminal justice issues of the day, which are that charging has collapsed, prosecutions are few, there is a backlog of 65,000 at the courts—which has got worse, not better, since the end of the pandemic—and the prisons are full. There is no coherent strategy or provision in the Bill that is tackling any of those issues. Fine, there is some change to sentencing, but you have to appreciate how few people get as far as sentencing these days. I wonder whether we are not starting at the wrong end.
However, having said that—and I do say that, very strongly; and in that sense, the Bill is a disappointment—there are some bits of it that are very welcome.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I think that rationalising the way intimate images are dealt with is very good. The Law Commission has done a really good job of doing that. I think there are a couple of missing bits, which I could come back to later. Probably some of the aggravating sentence provisions are good, but I am worried about the fact that the Wade review has not been implemented as a whole.
There is a risk with the aggravations of sentence in domestic abuse without the mitigating factor in the Wade review. If someone strikes back after suffering coercive control for a long time, that should be a serious mitigation. I can easily see some of the aggravating provisions catching women, who will not be protected by the mitigation. Although some of the aggravations are fine, that is a real problem for women victims of coercive control—coercive control is 90-odd per cent. men on women; there is no doubt of that. That is the classic model of male-on-female, spousal domestic abuse. I am worried a little bit about that, but the basic provisions are reasonably okay.
I am pretty worried about prisoners going abroad. The problem with that is that it is permission without really knowing what permission is being given for: we do not know what kind of prisoners will go, whether it will be in the middle of their trial, whether it will be while they are still on remand or any of it. That is a little worrying. It is a bit of a mixed bag.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I am not sure what the grooming one adds; I think it just broadens it. If grooming is involved, it is already taken into account as an aggravating factor in sentencing. Perhaps we can do that with a person who might have abused a groomed child directly. Perhaps this provision broadens it so that if the person who fixes up the child is also groomed—perhaps become someone has gone through him, grooming is in the environment and so it will enhance the sentence. The Bill broadens this a little; if it does, it is a good flag to wave because we want to tackle grooming and make sure it is taken into account. But I do not see it as a major change.
The problem is where there is a victim of someone abusive, and the killing is brought about by the victim’s decision to try to leave—or to leave. So we are looking at aggravating the sentence of an abusive person when the victim has said she is going to leave. That is a classic model, which Jess knows all about: the eight steps to homicide. That has been well researched. Professor Jane Monckton-Smith talks about this: when the victim says she is going to leave is the most dangerous time. That is the time when killing happens, so it is appropriate to aggravate the sentence because of that position being there—it is commonplace.
The worry is that sometimes women who have been coercively controlled for a very long time and have suffered badly are also aware that their husband is being unfaithful with someone else. He says that he is going off with the other woman, and that can trigger her to kill him. Without the protection in the Wade review—to say that if she is being coercively controlled, that is a mitigation—what you will have done is to aggravate her sentence through this change, which is not a thing that anyone intends. It could do with just another quick look at how it will work.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I am honestly not sure about that; I have not given it much thought. It sounded like what we would expect to be there, so I do not think I have much of a comment.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Dame Vera Baird: As I am sure the Ministers know very well, this adds absolutely nothing to the current law. A judge can order somebody to come into court. If they do not, it is a contempt of court.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Dame Vera Baird: But you can already use reasonable force. As long as it is proportionate and necessary, the Prison Service is entitled to use reasonable force to fulfil the orders of the judge. If the judge says, “You must come” and you do not come, it is, No. 1, a contempt of court. And guess what the maximum sentence is for a contempt court? It is two years, exactly as it is in the Bill. If a person does not want to come and the officers regard it as necessary and proportionate to use force to bring them, they are entitled to do exactly that to fulfil the judge’s requirements. There is really no change here.
I well understand the sense from a victim that they want this moment—“Right, he’s going to face what he’s done now and I’m going to get some benefit from that.” But the reality is that you cannot capture somebody’s mind, can you? There are always risks that people who are dragged into court might be a nuisance. You can just imagine what could be done there. So it is a very difficult one to get right, although I understand the impulse to try to do this.
I think it was the former Lord Chief Justice John Thomas who suggested that a better way was to make sure that if the person does not come out of the cell, he is in a cell to which the sentencing can be broadcast. He cannot get away and the victims know that he has, as it were, faced his moment. Whatever he is doing—whether he is listening or he is not—they do not know, and that is the time passed.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I think they probably need to be strengthened quite a lot. I do not think there is anything in there that could criminalise somebody who provided a means for doing it as opposed to encouraging it. So if someone provides—I do not know—a knife or some drugs, I am not sure there is provision for that, and I think that is a big miss. This is a really worrying area and we need to legislate, and that is one of the good things in the Bill.
Laura Farris
Q
In that context, coercive control is making its way through in different forms. I have a narrow question about what you thought about the use of MAPPA—multi-agency public protection arrangements—in relation to the management of a serious coercive control offence.
Dame Vera Baird: I think it is good to state that formally. I am sure that it happens now quite a lot.
Laura Farris
Q
Dame Vera Baird: It is a strict regime and it is very carefully managed. The probation service is aware of the high level of risk. It is definitely beneficial for dangerous offenders, and the probation service has recognised domestic abusers. Even when they have not committed domestic abuse offences, it still recognised them as presenting that danger, if they are already in MAPPA. I am sure that the most coercively controlling offenders already go into MAPPA. It is not a closed box that you can only fight your way into through these five categories of offending. It is much wider than that, but let’s do it—fine.
Laura Farris
Q
Dame Vera Baird: That is a very interesting question, but they are better and they have positive bits to them, don’t they?
Laura Farris
A DAPO does allow GPS monitoring, for example.
Dame Vera Baird: That is an improvement on the current model. There will have to be close working between those who apply for the DAPOs and those who are running MAPPA to make sure that there is no overlap or missing bits and so forth. This cross-boundary working is going to be particularly important with that. But they are both good steps. I do think MAPPA is slightly redundant, but let us do it, and the DAPOs and those positive requirements are definitely a big step forward. What you said about the statutory instrument is really interesting—
Laura Farris
Lord Bellamy, today in the Lords—
Dame Vera Baird: Yes, that is really good to hear, but these are going into statute. Why is the protection for women only going into a statutory instrument, which frankly fewer people will ever get to know about? Why is it being done in that way? Why is it not in here with these?
Laura Farris
I will have to revert to the Committee on the answer to that, because I actually do not know.
Dame Vera Baird: Anyway, I am not supposed to ask you questions—[Laughter.]
Laura Farris
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I think it is bound to, yes. I have felt since their inception that DAPOs, because of those positive requirements, were likelier to be more effective than just the negative nature of whatever they were called—I forget what they are called currently.
MAPPA is an effective mechanism. You raise very interesting questions about how they will interact, and I just think it is about cross-working, really, between police and probation in particular. They have to work in IOM anyway, so they must have ways of working together that ought to be reasonably effective. But I hope that you will, as it were, as a Government draw to their attention the need for an understanding of how those mechanisms will work together, because that would be an important way to point out that it needs to be done effectively.
Jess Phillips
Q
Dame Vera Baird: No.
Jess Phillips
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I think it is a good piece of flag waving, and it ought to be something that ups the attention of the relevant parties. A lot of people do not get protected sufficiently by MAPPA.
Jess Phillips
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I do not know about the numbers, but it is not a foolproof system. When it works, it works well, I think, and it can be quite subtly tuned for particular kinds of offender. But I do not know that it works so well with domestic abuse generally. In fact, what does?
Jess Phillips
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I hope so. It is pretty straightforward. It started off with a nice private Member’s Bill, and it was good for upskirting, but it was very taken with the intention of the individual. Taking a photograph and upskirting—frankly, if you do it, it is a crime, I would have thought. Struggling to find out whether they had done it for their own sexual benefit or to sell it online or whatever: I do not think that matters. I think the Law Commission have got to, “If you do it at all—make an intimate image—it’s an offence. If you do it with that intention, it’s worse. If you do it with this intention, it’s worse,” and that looks as if it works well.
I do not know why deepfake is not banned. Everybody knows what that is. The Minister will tell me there is a Standing Order going through. You just gave me a shocked look. Deepfake is not in the Bill, is it?
Jess Phillips
No, deepfake is not in it.
Dame Vera Baird: So that is where you could have possibly even a performative person doing deliberately provocative, maybe naked actions. You can take their face off, put mine on instead and put that online. That is dreadfully, dreadfully damaging—every bit as much, possibly more, because of the potential bravado of the act, which would then be blamed on you. That needs making unlawful, and it needs dealing with.
The other problem is that there are no orders to get rid of the stuff that is online already. I asked Penney Lewis—who is coming presently, so she will tell you—why they did not try to tackle the question of taking down stuff. She said that their terms of reference relate to criminality, not the civil orders. My view is that there should be a new look at that, because the pain of being a victim of intimate images is knowing that they are online.
There is a heroic academic at Durham called Professor Clare McGlynn who has done a huge amount of work on this. The impact on somebody of knowing that there is a naked picture of them somewhere online makes them withdraw: they cannot face anybody new, because they think that inevitably they must have seen them online and will have a poor view of them. That is how it gets internalised.
So it is urgent. If the Law Commission was not asked to look at taking stuff down, which I understand is done effectively in Canada, it should be asked to look at it again, or you must find another mechanism for it. The pain is from knowing that it is still up.
Jess Phillips
Q
Dame Vera Baird: Now that I understand that the mitigation relating to being coercively controlled will go into law, at least at a lower level—although I do think it should be in this statute—I am less worried. There is some possibility, isn’t there, if it is about murder or manslaughter, because a lot of victims who have been coercively controlled and strike back are convicted of manslaughter—
Jess Phillips
Losing their parental responsibility, you mean?
Dame Vera Baird: Yes. That would be a woman who had been persecuted. You are talking about sex offences?
Jess Phillips
Yes, specifically sex offences. That bit of law is in the Victims and Prisoners Bill—the law on murder and manslaughter, which I believe has some carve-out. Not to inform the Minister of this, but that is the reason why it is going through the Lords today: the carve-out, which is in that Bill, not this one. But what I was talking about was a proposal to take parental responsibility away from men convicted of sexual offences against children.
Dame Vera Baird: I am less convinced by that, because the definition of a sexual offence may be quite a wide one. I think it needs some reflection. I appreciate that if there is a sexual risk order, you can have a man who is banned from being in touch with all children except his own.
Jess Phillips
I think that’s the problem.
Dame Vera Baird: That is the point, so it needs tackling. But just sex offences—does it apply to flashers or people online? I do not know. I think it probably needs tuning a bit.
Jess Phillips
Q
Dame Vera Baird: It is long overdue to be decriminalised, as it is in Northern Ireland. This Parliament decriminalised it in Northern Ireland. Why on earth is it still a criminal offence to do what is a tragic thing that nobody wants to do, and have a late abortion? The last time the offence was in play was quite recently: it was about six months ago. The Court of Appeal was amazingly benevolent towards the woman and accepted entirely that she needed support, not criminalisation. The Court of Appeal seems to be ahead of this Parliament on that at the moment. You used to have women from Northern Ireland coming over here for help with abortion; now, women from here go over to Northern Ireland to avoid the risk of criminalisation if they are a week late. It is quite odd.
The Chair
As there are no further questions, may I thank you, Dame Vera, for your evidence? We will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
Jonathan Hall KC gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who is joining us via Zoom. For this panel we have until 4.10 pm, so could Members keep an eye on the clock?
Alex Cunningham
Q
Jonathan Hall: There is only one measure that deals with counter-terrorism. It has to do with allowing released terrorist offenders of a certain category to be subject to polygraph measures. In principle, I suggest that polygraph measures for released terrorist offenders are a good thing; there was an evaluation by the Ministry of Justice in October that tends to support that. However, there are some significant reservations about the way the provision is being put before Parliament, which involves—impermissibly, I think—giving the Secretary of State powers that should belong to judges. This is a slightly technical point, but if you will give me a moment, I would like to explain it.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Jonathan Hall: What I am saying is that normally it is for judges to decide whether a person is a terrorist. That is what they do: either someone is convicted of or pleads guilty to a terrorism offence, or the judge makes a special determination that their offence, which could be something like robbery or assault, was done either in the course of terrorism or for the purposes of terrorism. But this clause would allow the Secretary of State to do that exact exercise in relation to people who were convicted pre-2009. You might well have someone coming up for release who went to prison having been convicted of a non-terrorism offence, but now finds themselves converted into a terrorist offender by a decision of the Secretary of State. The view I take is that that is really a function of judges.
In fact, if you look at the wording of the Bill, the Secretary of State will be allowed to be “satisfied”—not beyond reasonable doubt, just satisfied—on exactly the same test that currently applies to judges. There is obviously a fundamental issue there, which I can expand on, but there is also a really practical issue, because what is a terrorism offence is not always very obvious. Can I give you an example, so that this does not sound pie-in-the-sky and theoretical?
Alex Cunningham
Yes, please.
Jonathan Hall: I do not know whether the Committee recalls the Liverpool Women’s Hospital bombing, but there was a gentleman in 2020 who blew himself up in a taxi, and it looked like a classic terrorist attack. He was a Muslim, although it appeared that he had converted to Christianity, and he had a suicide vest packed with explosives. The police did a two-year investigation—he killed himself, so there was no prosecution—and they concluded that in fact it was not terrorism at all. He was simply affected by a grievance to do with not being granted asylum.
That shows you how difficult it is. I would be really wary about the Secretary of State being allowed to go back in time to look at all these old offences and say, “I decide that this was a terrorism offence.” The Bill does not give a right to be heard to the person who is going to find his conviction converted into a terrorism offence. It does not give the prosecution a right to be heard, which is actually quite important because the prosecution will often understand these things very well. It would allow the Secretary of State, I think, to act on the basis of intelligence that is not even shown. In principle, it seems to me wrong.
This issue has arisen before. I do not know whether the Committee is aware, but you will have people who were convicted of terrorism offences abroad; if they are British nationals, they will perhaps be deported to the UK after they have served their imprisonment. There is a provision in the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 that allows the chief officer to go to a judge and say, “Look: we think that this person was convicted of a terrorism offence that is the same as a terrorism offence in this country. Can you please certify that that is the case, or can you certify that the offence was committed in the course of terrorism?” If the judge says yes, that allows all the post-release measures—such as polygraph measures, with which this clause is concerned—to be applied. So there is a model that already exists for old foreign offences. Slightly ironically, the power that Parliament is being asked to create here would make the protections available to a domestic offender less than those that apply to a foreign offender.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Jonathan Hall: No, I do not think so at the moment. I am in constant contact with counter-terrorism police and the Home Office. I am not aware that the Government are looking for yet further types of measure; if they were, I think they would have sought to bring them in within this Criminal Justice Bill. All that this particular measure does is allow an existing measure, polygraphs, to be applied to a wider range of people. My beef with that is that it allows it to be applied to people who have never been convicted of terrorism, without it going in front of a judge. So I think that the answer is no.
Laura Farris
Q
Jonathan Hall: I was in favour of polygraph measures after Fishmongers’ Hall. It was partly on the back of one of my recommendations that polygraph measures were brought in. They always, or at least for a long time, existed for sex offenders. You will recall Usman Khan, who was clearly a very deceptive man. My view was that polygraph measures could be useful.
Laura Farris
Q
Jonathan Hall: Let us say that someone is in the community. They could be asked about their daily routine. The most likely outcome is that someone who is subject to a polygraph measure would feel that they have to tell the truth, and the evidence is that people who are subject to polygraphs make admissions. You could say, “Are you in touch with the well-known terrorist Jonathan Hall?”, and the effect of polygraphs tends to be that people go, “Actually, I am,” because they are worried about giving it away through the polygraph measure. That would give counter-terrorism police an amazing source of information to show that, contrary to what that person had been telling his probation officer, he was still in touch with the dangerous terrorist Jonathan Hall. That would allow new licence conditions, for example: if Jonathan Hall lived in a certain part of Birmingham, a licence condition could be imposed that prevented that person from going there.
Laura Farris
Q
Jonathan Hall: Yes. You are completely right. This is not about extracting evidence that can be used in a criminal trial; it is about extracting information that is relevant to the management of offenders. If you think about a released terrorist offender who is now serving their sentence in the community, what you want to know is what their pattern of life is, who they are meeting, where they are going and what their objectives are. Are they visiting shops that sell knives, for example? Usman Khan must have gone to a shop to buy knives and tape to create the weapons used to kill two people. There are lots of factual matters that they can be asked about.
One of the benefits of the polygraph, I suppose, is that ultimately it is not covert. While MI5 and the police may have covert monitoring, it would be quite hard for them to put that information to the suspect. If the suspect has made an admission—“Yes, I am going to meet Jonathan Hall, the well-known terrorist,” or “Yes, I am going to visit knife shops”—that can be put to the offender, and you can work on rehabilitating the offender.
The Chair
As there are no further questions, I would like to thank the witness for giving evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Professor Penney Lewis, commissioner for criminal law at the Law Commission. We have until 4.30 pm for this panel. Could you please introduce yourself for the record?
Professor Lewis: I am Professor Penney Lewis; I am the commissioner for criminal law at the Law Commission of England and Wales.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Professor Lewis: We are extremely pleased that there are measures from four of our projects in the Bill. Those are the provisions that I can speak about today. Those four projects are intimate image abuse; modernising communications offences; corporate criminal liability; and confiscation of the proceeds of crime. If I say a little about each of those—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Can we all check that our phones are on silent, please, and that they haven’t got a mind of their own?
Professor Lewis: I will start with confiscation, because that is the largest area of the Bill; the provisions are in schedule 4. The review aimed to simplify, clarify and modernise the post-conviction confiscation regime—in other words, the confiscation of the proceeds of crime after someone has been convicted.
We know that the current regime works in some cases, where it can result in funds being allocated to victims through compensation that can be paid out of confiscation, but there is still a fairly strong consensus among stakeholders that the current regime is inefficient, overly complex and in some cases ineffective, with weak enforcement methods. Our recommendations were aimed at improving the current system to give courts more powers to enforce confiscation orders and seize offenders’ assets, but also to limit unrealistic orders that can never be paid back and to speed up confiscation proceedings, thus allowing victims to receive compensation more quickly.
I will touch on the other three projects, which have a smaller number of measures in the Bill. As I think most of you will know, some of the recommendations that the Law Commission made on intimate image abuse were implemented in the Online Safety Act 2023: the offences of sharing an intimate image without consent and with no reasonable belief in consent; and threatening to share an intimate image. The other recommendations that we made were taking an intimate image without consent; and installing equipment in order to take an intimate image without consent. Those offences could not be included in the Online Safety Act because they are not communications offences, so this is really the second half of the implementation of our recommendations.
We aimed to provide a clear, coherent and cohesive set of offences that would cover all types of sharing and taking without consent, that would have one consistent definition of an intimate image and that would reflect different motivations that defendants might have for sharing and taping intimate images without consent, including cases where the defendant apparently has no motive. We recognise more serious culpability with motives of intending to cause humiliation, alarm or distress, or for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, but we also recommended criminalising cases where those motives cannot be proven. We are very pleased that those offences have now been included in the Criminal Justice Bill.
Briefly, corporate criminal liability is another example of the completion of implementation—something that we discussed in our options paper. It was not a full report, so it did not have recommendations, but it had a number of options. One was reform of the identification doctrine. You may know that the Economic, Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 included reform of the identification doctrine, which allows for the attribution of personal criminal liability to the corporation in certain circumstances where the person is a senior manager, so it expands that form of attribution. That could only be done in relation to economic crime in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, so the reform in this Bill basically expands that to include all types of crime for which a corporate liability may be appropriate.
Finally—yes, I am getting to the end of my answer—one offence in the Bill, which is encouraging or assisting a serious self-harm, is again the expansion of something that was the implementation of a recommendation for the Online Safety Act from our modernising communications offences project. That offence was included in the Act insofar as it was a communications offence, but it is also possible to encourage self-harm by handing somebody a knife, so this expanded offence in the Criminal Justice Bill includes that kind of more physical assistance. It is not restricted to assistance by way of communication.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Professor Lewis: Those clauses are not the implementation of any Law Commission recommendations, I am afraid. The Law Commission does not take a position on those parts of the law that we have not had the opportunity to investigate or to speak to stakeholders about. I am afraid I cannot help on that.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Professor Lewis: It is not something we have looked at in relation to that clause. I would take a very small opportunity here to mention that we are about to start a project on defences for victims who kill their abusers, so we will be looking at the kind of relationship that should qualify in relation to defences. We are aware that if, for example, one restricts it to intimate-partner violence, then one risks excluding “honour-based” killing, which can also happen in a family context. We are planning to look at that, but we have not looked at it yet.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Professor Lewis: I am really sorry to disappoint, but it is not something we have looked at. We did look at homelessness as a possible protected characteristic for the purposes of hate crime law when we did the project on hate crime law a few years ago, which you may remember. That was a really interesting and revealing experience, because when we first started talking to stakeholders, some of them, including Shelter, were quite opposed to the idea of including homelessness as a protected characteristic—they thought that it entrenched homelessness when we should be trying to remove it and prevent it.
When Shelter spoke to homeless people on our behalf, which was really helpful, and when we spoke to homeless people, they actually described a lot of very horrific criminal behaviour perpetrated against them, and they experienced that as a hate crime. They experienced it as involving hostility towards them because they were homeless. We have some experience of looking at that. Ultimately, we did not recommend the expansion of hate crime law; as you may remember, there was a lot of opposition to its expansion. But we certainly saw the benefit of making sure we spoke to homeless stakeholders in order to really understand their lived experience.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Professor Lewis: I am afraid that is not something that we have looked at.
Chris Philp
Q
Professor Lewis: Many paragraphs of the schedule do implement our recommendations. We are extremely pleased to see our recommendations implemented extremely swiftly. This project only reported over a year ago. We obviously do think that the changes we recommended would make a difference in the ways I mentioned earlier, which included improving enforcement and the ability to seize offenders’ assets, limiting unrealistic and in some cases unfair orders, and allowing victims to receive compensation more promptly.
We estimated at the time that the reforms could lead to an extra £8 million in funds being retrieved from criminals in England and Wales every year. That obviously helps to return more money that can be used on public services, for instance. I am happy to talk in more detail about specific recommendations if that would be helpful.
Chris Philp
Q
Professor Lewis: One of the things we thought was most important, in addition to trying to make the system more efficient, was to balance it with also making it more fair. In terms of efficiency, we recommended things like expediting the setting of a confiscation timetable, which is in paragraph 12, and creating a settlement process, which already happens informally—we call it EROC, which stands for early resolution of confiscation. That has been implemented in paragraph 13. We note also that better enforcement will improve the recovery of funds.
There have been several recommendations that have been implemented in order to improve enforcement. Enforcement plans, which largely implement our recommendations for contingent orders, are in paragraph 16; and allowing enforcement to take place in the Crown court as well as the magistrates court is in paragraph 17. We think that those will make the system much more efficient and will radically improve enforcement.
In terms of fairness, it is really important that orders accurately deflect a defendant’s benefit from crime. There are two ways in which we have recommended, and the Government have introduced clauses to implement, improving the fairness of confiscation orders. One concerns where someone has made only a temporary gain—for example, a money launderer who allows their bank account to be used to transfer £1,000,000 but gets paid £10,000 for doing that. When the gain is only temporary their benefit from crime is not really £1,000,000, given that they do not get to keep that. At the moment, orders can be made in the amount of the temporary gain and that recommendation has been taken up. I will find the paragraph for you in a moment.
Chris Philp
Q
Professor Lewis: I am happy to address that. The temporary gain issue is in paragraph 8. The other improvement to the calculation of benefit is in circumstances where the defendant has already disgorged some of the proceeds of their crime—so, for example, that may have been forfeited or seized by the state already. That should not be double counted, so that the defendant then has to pay back something that has already been seized by the state. That is in paragraph 5. We are very pleased to see those fairness recommendations, as well as the efficiency gains.
In terms of deadlines, ultimately there is a deadline: it is called the default term of imprisonment. When a confiscation order is made against a defendant, a term of imprisonment in default is set. The defendant may end up serving this period of imprisonment if it is activated by the court, on the basis that the defendant has demonstrated either wilful refusal to pay the confiscation order or culpable neglect in failing to pay it. The defendant can of course secure release from the default term by paying the confiscation debt. In the consultation paper we cite a case where, as the person is being taken off to prison, finally the confiscation debt is settled. So, we do know that that does work—at least, anecdotally.
In the consultation paper we provisionally proposed something that would be even more stringent than that. At the moment the defendant is released halfway through the default term. After that, there is no more threat of imprisonment. We provisionally proposed that the defendant should be released only on licence, similar to the way in which life prisoners are released, for example. I think that was probably our most controversial proposal. There were some people who were in favour of that, but lots of people thought it extremely draconian; another sector thought that it really would not work, and within that was His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. In other words, probation is not really designed to get people to pay their confiscation orders; it has another purpose. It has a rehabilitative purpose.
Ultimately, we decided that there are better ways to try to ensure enforcement. So, yes, there is the default term that remains, and that is a real threat to defendants. However, we also recommended confiscation assistance orders, requiring the defendant to attend enforcement hearings after the default term has been served and requiring the provision of financial information with penalties for non-compliance or providing false information. The first two of those—assistance orders and requiring the defendant to attend enforcement hearings after serving the default term—are both in schedule 4.
Chris Philp
Q
Professor Lewis: Again, we do not have a view; it is not something that we have looked at. Obviously, in our hate crime project we looked at circumstances where sentences were aggravated because of hostility towards a protected characteristic, and we recommended equalising the protection that the various protected characteristics carry so that every protected characteristic would have aggravated offences, as well as enhanced sentencing for those offences that do not have aggravated versions. However, we have not looked specifically at the individually aggravated offences such as the ones for assaulting a police officer and so on, I am afraid.
Chris Philp
Q
Professor Lewis: We do not have a corporate view, because we have not done work on it. You are right to worry that one is drawing very fine lines, and once one has added one offence, there is another group of people who are not included in the bespoke offences. One ends up with a proliferation of bespoke offences for different categories of function.
Chris Philp
Q
Professor Lewis: I do not think that I would go further than that. I think that concern should be considered, but I do not think that I am in a position to have a personal view, having not looked at it in any depth.
Jess Phillips
Q
Professor Lewis: Missing from the projects that are implemented or missing from other projects?
Jess Phillips
Q
Professor Lewis: No. We are still awaiting a Government response on the vast majority of our recommendations in the hate crime report.
Jess Phillips
For example, women—
Professor Lewis: No, that is the one they responded to, because we recommended that sex or gender not be added for the purposes of aggravated offences or enhanced sentencing. You may remember that there was a statutory requirement for the Government to respond to that, and they responded accepting our recommendation not to add it. They have not responded to the rest of the recommendations, including our recommendation that there should be an offence of stirring up hatred on the basis of sex or gender as well as equalising the treatment of all the other protected characteristics in relation to stirring up hatred.
Jess Phillips
Q
Professor Lewis: I cannot comment on whether it could have been in the Bill.
Jess Phillips
You can put anything in it if you want— I am going to.
Professor Lewis: It is not in the Bill, and we await a response from the Government on the vast majority of our recommendations.
Jess Phillips
Q
Professor Lewis: I have to accept—in fact, I am pleased to accept—that in terms of projects that I have worked on, more than half of them have been implemented in the last year. The implementation rate of Law Commission criminal law projects at the moment is—
Jess Phillips
That is good to hear.
Professor Lewis: We are really pleased to be able to work with the Government to implement our recommendations in so many projects; I think it is five in the last year.
Jess Phillips
Q
Professor Lewis: Compensation for victims is a really important issue and one of the things that we recommended in the confiscation project, because compensation was not part of that project directly, is that there needs to be a separate review of compensation for victims.
None the less, we made recommendations where there is overlap. For example, we described it as giving priority to the payment of compensation. We recommended that where a compensation order is imposed at the same time as a confiscation order, the Crown court should be required to direct that compensation should be paid from the sums recovered under the confiscation order. At the moment, that happens only if the defendant does not have enough money to pay both orders, but we recommended that, even if the defendant does have enough money, the first lot of money should go on compensation.
Similarly, when multiple confiscation orders are imposed, priority should be given to the payment of compensation and after that to the confiscation orders. Paragraph 11 of schedule 4 basically implements those recommendations, saying that the court “must direct” that
“sums recovered under the confiscation order”
be applied to “ priority order (or orders)”. Priority orders are defined in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 as including compensation orders. Therefore, although you may not see the word “compensation” in that paragraph, it very much is in there, and the paragraph prioritises the application of funds to victims, whether that means that you as an individual victim are seeking compensation funds—
Jess Phillips
Q
Professor Lewis: Yes.
The Chair
Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witness for the time that she has given us today.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)
Media Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 12th December 2023
(1 year ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Media Act 2024 View all Media Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2023 - (12 Dec 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Government amendments 13 to 15
Clause stand part.
Schedule 9.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I am pleased to finally address clause 48, which I am happy to support. I will begin by outlining why this part of the Bill is so important.
The introduction of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill was welcomed by Labour, which has led the way in calling for large tech companies to be properly regulated and for the need to ensure competition in digital markets. However, although the DMCC Bill contains a package of measures to protect consumers, enhance innovation and unlock growth, it is cross-economy legislation that is not tailored to the unique challenges faced by UK radio services.
The Government have recognised that in an age of shifting consumption habits, there is a need for provisions that protect our public service broadcasters, so it was absolutely vital that the Media Bill did not miss the opportunity to provide protections for radio, too. As has been mentioned, radio stations are of great importance to 50 million weekly listeners from all corners of the country, so it is vital that as technology rapidly evolves, people in the UK are guaranteed access to the radio services they know and love. The new regime set up by the Bill does not seek to give radio undue benefits, but rather looks to preserve the current state of play, in which such services can be listened to at first request and without unneeded interruption. That is for the benefit of listeners.
That means that voice-activated platforms cannot play their own playlists or services when a customer requests an Ofcom-licensed radio service, or overlay their own advertising into radio broadcasts without the permission of the broadcaster. Interruptions will be allowed only if a listener has explicitly made a request to be notified, for example through an alarm or call. That is important if radio services are to reach their listeners and continue to secure advertising revenue, and important for platforms, which will be able to ensure that their customers’ requests are dealt with precisely. Indeed, it hardly seems favourable to platforms to allow their customers to become frustrated after not receiving a service that they have requested multiple times through a voice command.
Importantly, the Bill has retained the requirement on designated radio selection services to use a broadcaster’s preferred way of delivering their station to listeners —for example, they might want it delivered via the BBC Sounds app, or through the Global Player. That vital safeguard will ensure that radio services can access the valuable data they need to improve their services, innovate and best serve their audiences. However, I recognise that platforms have been concerned about the number of routes they might be expected to deliver. Google said in evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that it can take around a year of engineering and tech work to onboard a preferred route, particularly because listeners can ask for a station in various ways; for example, a listener could refer to the same service as “6 Music”, “BBC 6” or “BBC Radio 6”, or use one of a number of nicknames. However, as Radiocentre has argued, the vast majority of stations are covered by a small number of apps.
The explanatory notes to the Bill clarify that a preferred route may be ruled out if it is “unduly burdensome”. That balances radio services’ needs with platforms’ ability to realistically cater for those needs. I am hopeful that this clarification will provide a solid basis on which the regime can be built.
On radio selection services, the definition in the Bill is designed to capture smart speakers, but it can be amended by the Secretary of State via the affirmative procedure. We discussed why an ability to amend the definition is so important during our debate on the inclusion of car entertainment systems. I am also pleased that there is now a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult Ofcom when making regulations to alter this definition, as the Culture, Media and Sport Committee recommended. However, there has been some confusion about the existing definition and whether the regulations will apply to smart TVs and streaming players using voice activation. Can the Minister confirm whether such devices will be included? If not, could they be in future?
Turning to designated radio selection services, as I said in debate on my amendments 32 and 33, it is a shame that the CMS Committee’s recommendations on delegated legislation were not accepted. I am pleased, however, that it seems that there will be mechanisms for de-designating devices, to ensure the exclusion of legacy devices. That is beneficial for platforms and broadcasters, who would find it quite a burden if requirements applied where devices were no longer supported.
I do not have any particular problems with the lines in the Bill relating to the meaning of “internet radio service”, or the list of relevant internet radio services, particularly as there is now a power in the Bill to amend that definition through the affirmative procedure. However, as has been discussed, the Bill misses the opportunity to bring within scope podcasts and IP-only services.
Finally, I would like to raise concerns passed on to me by TuneIn, a radio aggregator that allows listeners to easily access online the radio stations that they want to listen to. It worries that without an explicit “must offer” requirement, the Bill risks unintentionally making it legal for a radio station to deny its service to any platform or device. TuneIn warns that, without a requirement on radio broadcasters to ensure that their services are always offered to platforms, devices and apps, there can be no guarantee that radio will be freely accessible across those platforms. That could threaten the entire premise of the regime outlined in this clause and, of course, potentially damage TuneIn’s business as a radio aggregator. I therefore ask the Minister whether the Department has considered the concerns of TuneIn, and whether he can guarantee that the Bill will ensure that radio is freely accessible across all platforms, rather than just a handful of platforms.
To conclude, there has been lots of contention over this part of the Bill, but I am pleased with its intent to protect radio services, and with the changes that have already been made to improve it and make it more workable. There are a few changes to delegated legislation that I would have liked to have seen, and a few questions to be asked around scope, particularly when it comes to the exclusion of podcasts and the devices covered. However, overall, I welcome the inclusion of this part in the Bill, and I look forward to seeing the regime in action, so that listeners across the country can continue to enjoy their favourite, trusted radio services.
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)
We have had a useful debate on one of the central parts of the Bill, and although the hon. Lady described it as one of the more contentious parts, I think there is widespread agreement on it. We were very grateful to the CMS Committee for strongly supporting the inclusion of these measures in the Bill, and since then, we have had extensive consultations with both the radio sector and the platforms. Some of the concerns expressed by platforms were not entirely justified, and I hope that we have been able to reassure them.
This part is focused on live radio broadcast, but obviously we will monitor the development of consumers’ listening habits, and there are powers available to broaden the scope of the Bill if it becomes clear that that is necessary. However, in summation, I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for her support, and to the rest of the Committee, and commend clause 48 to the Committee.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendments made: 13, in clause 48, page 102, line 12, after “service” insert
“or (as the case may be) a relevant internet radio service”
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 12.
Amendment 14, in clause 48, page 103, line 12, after “service” insert
“, or
(b) a person who was but is no longer a provider of a relevant internet radio service,”
This amendment and Amendment 15 enable OFCOM to give a confirmation decision to a former provider of a relevant internet radio service.
Amendment 15, in clause 48, page 103, line 13, after “service” insert
“or (as the case may be) a relevant internet radio service”—(Sir John Whittingdale.)
See explanatory statement to Amendment 14.
Clause 48, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 49
Penalties under Parts 3A and 3B of the Communications Act 2003
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clause 49 inserts proposed new schedules 16A and 16B, as set out in schedules 10 and 11, into the Communications Act 2003. These new schedules make further provisions about financial penalties and the liability of joint entities in relation to designated internet programme services, regulated television selection services, relevant internet radio services and designated radio selection services. In particular, schedule 16A sets out the principles by which Ofcom will assess penalty amounts and maximum penalties for non-compliance with the requirements on providers of those services set out in parts 2 and 6 of the Bill. For the BBC, S4C or a person who fails to comply with an information notice, the maximum penalty is £250,000. In all other cases, the maximum penalty that Ofcom can impose against providers of services is the greater of £250,000 or 5% of the provider’s qualifying worldwide revenue.
As is the case under the existing prominence regime, Ofcom will have responsibility for enforcing the new online prominence framework and that relating to radio selection services. It is therefore important that the regulator has a range of enforcement tools at its disposal for tackling contraventions, including the ability to impose a financial penalty. We believe that these provisions ensure that Ofcom can take enforcement action against the relevant provider in a proportionate and effective manner.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 49 introduces schedules 10 and 11, which provide further information about enforcement and how it relates to the new prominence regime for our public service broadcasters, as well as the new regime for radio services on smart speakers and voice-activated platforms. I will speak briefly about both schedules in turn.
Schedule 10 sets out how penalties for failure to comply with the relevant regimes will be calculated. The ability to issue penalties is an important backstop that will ensure compliance with the regime while incentivising mutually beneficial commercial partnerships. However, to secure the integrity of the regime, it is important that there is consistency and fairness in how the backstop can be used, so it is good to see set out in legislation the principles that Ofcom must apply when determining the amount of any penalty, as well as how maximum penalties will be calculated. It is right that these should have the potential to be significant—they can amount to either £250,000 or 5% of the person’s qualifying worldwide revenue—so that they can serve their purpose as an effective deterrent. I am also pleased that the schedule allows for those amounts to be adjusted, should they need future-proofing in any way. Any change would be subject to the affirmative procedure, which would allow for scrutiny. Overall, I believe that schedule 10 is a necessary consequence of the regimes that the Bill sets up, and I have no particular issues to raise with the way that they have been drafted.
Schedule 11 is an important extension of the backstop powers awarded to Ofcom. It sets out the liability of parent entities and subsidiaries, and explains how confirmation decisions, penalty notices or provisional notices may be issued to them. Having that clarification in the Bill will hopefully make for a clear enforcement framework for Ofcom, and will make clear the responsibilities on those to whom the rules apply, so I welcome the inclusion of the schedule, which is necessary to the introduction of the two prominence regimes.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 50
Awards of costs
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 50, page 112, line 33, at end insert—
“(4) This section does not have effect until both Houses of Parliament have passed a motion in the form ‘That this House is satisfied that an effective alternative method is in place of persuading publishers to become members of an approved regulator; and therefore approves the repeal of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.’”
Kirsty Blackman
I will speak fairly briefly. Clause 50 is contentious. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the lack of accountability of the press, particularly the national press. After the Leveson inquiry, independent regulation of the press was recommended. Impress was set up, and that system is working well; over 200 newspapers signed up to it, but not one of the national ones did. The whole point of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 was to ensure that newspapers signed up to Impress, and were regulated by that independent regulator—it is not the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which is not an independent regulator.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady, and I hope, time permitting, to speak on clause stand part. The amendment refers to “persuading”. Does she have any suggestion that she can share with the Committee on how publishers might be persuaded, given that although this sword of Damocles has been hanging over them for a very long time, none of them has signed up? Has she had any conversations with publishers of the national or regional press about how her ends might be achieved?
Kirsty Blackman
It is incredibly difficult to find a way forward. The hon. Gentleman is right that the issue has been left hanging. Perhaps the press never believed that the Government would implement section 40 and make it work. Maybe the sword hanging over them was not big enough. Whatever has happened, it has not persuaded them to sign up. My key request is that the Government persuades them to sign up, using whatever methods are at their disposal. It is important that we have independent regulation, and that newspapers sign up.
To illustrate the point, IPSO upholds fewer than 1% of complaints that are brought to it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever been through the IPSO process, but it is incredibly complex and difficult. It is supposedly set up in such a way that anybody can access it, but without the advice of a lawyer, it is very difficult for a person to ensure that their concerns are heard and their complaint is upheld by IPSO.
The Government should use all the tools at their disposal. They should be having conversations and doing everything that they can to persuade newspapers to sign up. Section 40 should be removed only when there is an alternative—unless, of course, the Government are going to totally dump the idea of having independent press regulation and just give up on this.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Surely one of the reasons for what my hon. Friend describes is that IPSO exists as an alternative. As she says, less than 1% of complaints are ultimately upheld—the figure I have is 0.3%--with cases taking on average almost six months to reach a ruling. There is a disincentive effect, and the turnout says it all.
Kirsty Blackman
That is absolutely the case. It is very difficult for people to interact with IPSO in the first place, so a significant number of complaints never even get to IPSO, never mind going through the process and then not being upheld. The current situation is concerning, but it is for the Government to ensure that the newspapers are properly regulated. It is for the Government to enact and ensure compliance with the outcomes of the Leveson inquiry. I would like to hear more from the Government about what they plan to do to ensure that newspapers are properly held to account and properly regulated, and thus increase the level of trust in our media and, as a result, in our democracy. Those two things are inextricably linked.
Amendment 41 is about trying to find a way forward. The Government will have to persuade the newspapers to sign up, and they will have to persuade the Houses of Parliament that they have done enough to ensure that the newspapers will sign up. If all the newspapers signed up, it would be easy to persuade the Houses that whatever method the Government put in place had actually worked. That is the outcome I would like to see: everybody signed up. Then neither House would have any problem passing this clause to get rid of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.
Rob Butler
I have listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, but, with great respect, I disagree with her. I will outline why I disagree with her and why I support clause 50. I do so from a couple of perspectives: first, as the current chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on media freedom, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries chaired before me, with rather more success and aplomb, I suspect; and, secondly, as one who spent the first 15 years of his career as a journalist. I also strongly supported the print media in its original campaign against state regulation, it is fair to say, including the provision of some professional advice at the time.
Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act has never been commenced. I suggest that, to some extent, that shows it is not necessary and it is therefore appropriate to repeal it. However, there is also an important point of principle here: freedom of the press is sacrosanct and must be seen to be sacrosanct. I am quite sure that each and every one of us on this Committee has seen articles about ourselves in newspapers or online that we disagreed with, that were not wholly accurate, and that we really did not like, but if those articles are fundamentally wrong or harmful, legal sanctions are already available to deal with them, notably the laws of libel. There is also IPSO, which I will come on to in a moment. The fact that newspapers publish articles that are sometimes uncomfortable is not in itself reason to impose the draconian sanction that section 40 would have wielded.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North suggests persuading newspapers to participate, but we have had a very long period in which it has been clear that they are not persuadable; any persuasion would therefore effectively be enforcement, which in turn is effectively state regulation. That is why we have been in this difficulty for a long time. When I spoke about this on Second Reading, I was asked why newspapers did not avoid the prospect of paying huge court expenses by signing up to an approved regulator under our royal charter, which is what the hon. Lady is suggesting. The answer is simple: not a single national or regional newspaper or magazine of any significance is willing to do that as a matter of principle, because they see it as state regulation. I have a great deal of sympathy with that perspective.
The secretariat for our APPG on media freedom is provided by Reporters Without Borders, which is a highly respected advocate for freedom of the press worldwide that campaigns tirelessly for journalists’ voices to be heard, sometimes at considerable risk. Reporters Without Borders was calling for the repeal of section 40 as long ago as 2016, and it continues to do so today. Its submission to the Government’s consultation on repealing section 40, which was held way back in 2016-17, stated:
“Section 40 would introduce an unprecedented chilling effect for publishers and journalists in the UK, leading to self-censorship and a reduction in public interest reporting. The essential role of the press in our democracy would therefore be undermined, as well as the scope for any writer to investigate matters of concern and national interest for the public.”
When the public were asked in that same consultation, they expressed a resounding desire for section 40 to be repealed: 79% of direct responses favoured full repeal, and the most common reason given was the “chilling effect” it would have on the freedom of the press.
Kirsty Blackman
When I was a councillor back in 2007, there was an article in the local newspaper that said that a fellow councillor and I had requested that Irn Bru be provided in the Members’ Tea Room. In fact, all that had happened during the course of that meeting was that a Conservative councillor had asked for Earl Grey to be provided. We went to IPSO, which said that the newspaper was allowed to write that story because it was just the cut and thrust of political discussion, even though it was blatantly false. If IPSO is so unable to uphold the truth, is there any point in anyone going to it?
Rob Butler
Strictly speaking, I would suggest that that was libel, so there were legal routes available, but—to pre-empt the point that the hon. Lady might make—I accept that that is a very lengthy and expensive process, and that it might be a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I would say that IPSO was wrong in the case. I am very open about it: if something is said that is patently untrue, IPSO needs to hold its members to account, and what the hon. Lady said to some extent undermines that. That is what IPSO needs to take on.
The News Media Association has provided us all with a briefing, much of which is compelling. I will not risk the wrath of Committee members by reading it out in its entirety, but I highlight a couple of points. For example:
“Section 40 would cost the national and local press an estimated £100 million a year to tell the truth. This would be particularly devastating for local publishers.”
In my earlier contributions in Committee, I have been clear that I am concerned to ensure that local news is genuinely local; I got very close to the position of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition on that point at one stage. We should not do anything that makes local news coverage more difficult.
There are perfectly legitimate concerns about behaviour of the press and opportunity for redress, but the regulatory landscape has fundamentally changed since section 40 was introduced. I worked with some newspapers at the time, and they sat up and took notice when the threat of this legal sanction was over them. Publishers and editors have recognised that they have to face up to their responsibilities, and IPSO is much tougher than what was there before. There are serious sanctions, including, ultimately, the £1 million penalty. I completely hear what the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Arfon have said about the difficulties of getting through that. There may be more to do to make IPSO effective and easily accessible, but that does not mean that we have to have state regulation, which would be going much too far.
Hywel Williams
How does the hon. Gentleman expect IPSO to be persuaded to be more amenable?
Rob Butler
What is influential is the understanding of where public opinion is. The thought that the public had had enough was effectively what played a very big part in influencing the regulation of the press. The press did not ignore Leveson; they were very conscious of what was going on. I would certainly have no hesitation in telling people in the media, “You need to recognise that what you have is not quite enough to satisfy legitimate public concern.” Particular examples are helpful; hon. Member for Aberdeen North has given me one, which I shall not hesitate to quote if I have such a conversation.
It is worth also saying that there have been two independent reviews of IPSO. They stated that it was effective and independent, notwithstanding hon. Members’ comments. The second found that IPSO’s
“supportive, but challenging engagement to improve standards”
was
“exactly what an effective regulator should be doing”.
There is an argument that, even if it is not perfect, the press has cleaned house itself.
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate the case being made by the hon. Gentleman and I understand his position. However, on his point, he is sort of blurring the lines between a state regulator and an independent regulator. He is using the term “state regulator” for Impress when the whole idea, outcome and recommendation from Leveson was to have an independent regulator.
Rob Butler
That is not how the press has seen Impress, because it is set up by statute. The press’s argument has always been that it is effectively state-sanctioned and state-imposed. We can call it independent, but the press has never believed that Impress truly would be independent.
As I said, I have to be brief as, with the Committee’s permission, I have been summoned to an important meeting in a few moments, so I apologise for a short absence. My final comment is that at a time when we see freedom of the press under ever-increasing threat around the world, not least in Russia, repealing section 40 and demonstrating that the state should have no direct role would be a powerful sign of the UK’s commitment to a media free of Government shackle or interference. I consequently oppose the hon. Lady’s amendment and fully support the clause standing part of the Bill.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Following my hon. Friend’s speech, I want to speak briefly on the issue, in which I have taken an interest over many years. The Minister is nodding and he will remember that I served as a member of the Committee he chaired in 2011 looking at the phone hacking issue and the inquiry that was held at that time. Twelve years or more have passed since then, and the media landscape now is very different.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury that having a statutory regulator for the press is not compatible with our media traditions in this country. The threat of commencing section 40, with newspapers having to pay their own costs and those of the claimant even if they won the case—such a provision does not exist elsewhere in English law—would impose an onerous burden, yet the threat of commencement has not forced newspapers to seek to create or go into regulatory bodies for the press. The debates we have here on statutory regulation of the media and the debates we continually have when BBC charter renewal comes up show that whenever we create a structure, no matter how arm’s length or benign, Members of this House have points of view about how it is operated, what goes in it and how it should change or be improved. That will continue to be the case. A statutory regulator is not compatible with having a free press.
When we had the Leveson inquiry, the idea of newspapers’ business models being hollowed out by big tech platforms that would destroy their ad-funded business model was not something we considered. Newspapers were then seen as being all-powerful, extremely wealthy and well able to pay whatever charges were levelled at them. The situation is very different now.
The other issue, which I am familiar with as a former chair of the APPG on media freedom, is the issue of lawfare, whereby wealthy people, particularly oligarchs, take spurious legal action against newspapers because of content they do not like, without worrying about whether the case meets any kind of threshold. The libel laws are not absolute; they are not an absolute true-or-false test. To win, the claimant has to demonstrate that what a journalist reported has materially damaged them and their reputation, but very wealthy people do not care about that. They are quite happy to enter into such legal cases now, and even the threat of such actions deters editors from publishing stories that might be in the public interest, for fear of the almost certain legal challenge that will come back against them from people with bottomless pits of money who do not care whether they win or lose. They just seek to grind the publication into the ground with ongoing legal costs.
Commencing a regime that may open the door to yet more litigation from people who, on the whole, can easily afford it anyway, which makes the chances of success greater and which makes the cumulative impact of the costs on those publications even greater, would diminish the power of the press considerably. That would lead to a chilling effect, which was never envisaged when the Leveson report was commissioned, of inhibiting the press for fear of the cost that would come from simply doing their job and reporting the truth.
Of course, the press make mistakes and get things wrong. Newspaper editors have legal liabilities for what they publish. Members of the Committee know from our lengthy debates on measures such as the Online Safety Act 2023 that it is easy now for people to publish all sorts of stuff for which they have no legal liability—and, before the Act was passed, nor did the platforms that pursued it. The challenge that many people face, be they in the public eye or members of the community, is far more likely to be harassment and intimidation through co-ordinated attacks on social media than reporting a newspaper they do not like.
Kirsty Blackman
Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the online world is now regulated differently from newspapers as a result of the Online Safety Act? I agree with the Online Safety Act and agree that there should be more regulation online of things that are illegal, but we do not have a change in the regulation of newspapers to ensure truthfulness and lack of harm, whereas we do have some more of that in the online world.
Damian Collins
That is why it was important that there is an exemption for media organisations from the regulatory powers that Ofcom will have through the Online Safety Act. The reason those exemptions were there was that newspapers already have liability for not only the copy printed, but the adverts they accept and run. The newspaper or magazine editor is legally liable for advertising as much as they are for the articles they commission. Those liabilities and that transparency just did not exist for a lot of online publications, and it could be difficult to see who was behind it.
The challenge with the Online Safety Act was to recognise that the platforms were acting as distributors and promoters of the content—even for a lot of the content that is spam-related or comes from misinformation networks and hostile foreign states. If companies like Facebook are actively promoting that content and highlighting its existence to its users, they should have a liability for it. Newspapers and magazines already had those liabilities because it was clear who was publishing them. In the Online Safety Act, to qualify for the media exemption, it has to be clear who they are, where they are based and who the editor is, and therefore the transparency, liability and risks exist already. They did not in the online world, where many of the publishers were hidden and used that anonymity to spread lies and disinformation.
With that, the onerous costs that lawfare brings to newspapers, and the hollowing out of their business model by the ad platforms that distribute their content for nothing, there is an urgent need to have some sort of compensation mechanism for news organisations, so that local newspapers, national newspapers and magazines get fair compensation for the free distribution of their content across the web. Those are the challenges we face now, and those were things that were never envisaged at the time of Leveson.
As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North has said many times in the debate, things move pretty fast between media Bills. This is another example of how things have moved fast again. This amendment to the law and removing section 40 from the statute books reflects the need for us to change the law to reflect the media world that exists today.
Stephanie Peacock
When Leveson produced his report over 10 years ago, he attempted to strike a careful balance between two important competing objectives: enforcing press standards and protecting the free press. As such, although the inquiry paved the way for the existence of an approved press regulator, it was decided that membership in such a regulator would be voluntary rather than mandatory for news publishers, with incentives put in place to encourage active take-up of membership. One of the major incentives to encourage membership was introduced in the form of section 40. Where papers had not signed up to an approved regulator, they would be vulnerable to paying their legal opponents’ costs where the judge considered it reasonable to do so, even if they were to win the wider case. If they were signed up to a recognised regulator, however, they would be protected from that.
Despite being introduced in the Crime and Courts Act 2013, section 40 has never been commenced and would be repealed by clause 50. We appreciate that section 40 is not a particularly well-drafted piece of legislation. Representatives from and of the press, including the NMA, have long argued that it is morally wrong to attempt to persuade them to sign up to external regulation on the basis that they would have to pay the legal fees of both sides, even when they had won the case. They say if the section was commenced, it would prove financially ruinous to them as on principle they would never sign up to such a regulator.
With over a decade passed, the media landscape has changed significantly since the Leveson report was published, as we have discussed. Almost every major press news outlet has introduced some form of regulation, whether individually or through the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which was not anticipated when the law was drafted. Publishers face significant new challenges that threaten the ability of the industry to carry out its vital work, from inflation and falls in advertising revenue to the rise of social media and the ability to share disinformation more easily online.
Amendment 41, tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, acknowledges what we will do when section 40 is repealed. It remains important that we have a press that is accountable for its reporting and meets the highest ethical and journalistic standards, but given the poor drafting of section 40 and the fundamental imbalance of costs, I believe that those questions are best answered outside the matter of repeal itself. On that basis, I will not stand in the way of this Bill as a result of the Government’s decision to repeal section 40.
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe, and for Aylesbury, set out some of the background to this issue in two extremely well argued speeches. This is an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and I have been living with for over 10 years.
The Leveson inquiry came out of what was undoubtedly a serious abuse by the press, which resulted in criminal prosecutions and some convictions, and a general acceptance that the existing system of press regulation by the Press Complaints Commission had failed. However, the royal charter and section 40 were constructs of the then Liberal-Conservative Government; they were an attempt to find another way of dealing with the issue that would be acceptable to the press but did not represent state regulation. A royal charter was created, and the Press Recognition Panel was created, which would authorise an independent regulator and confer on it the advantages that section 40 gave.
The understanding was that the vast majority of the press would sign up to the independent regulator, and that perhaps one or two of the more recalcitrant, hard-line—probably red-top—tabloids might stand out and would need persuasion, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said when speaking to her amendment. Section 40 was about persuading those one or two remaining outliers to join the system. I must say that I still feel slightly ashamed, because I was persuaded to support the establishment of section 40 after a long discussion with the then Prime Minister.
What none of us, or at least hardly anybody, anticipated was that there would be unanimity across the whole of the media—across all the national newspapers, including those that were certainly not sympathetic to the Government, nor had committed any particular sins of the kind being looked at by Leveson. The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Independent—none of them was prepared to go along with that. It was not just the national newspapers that did not join, but all the local and regional papers; the big groups such as Newsquest, Reach and Johnston Press did not join.
The number of publications that chose to sign up to the regulator, which was created in order to qualify for recognition by the panel, was and is pretty small as a proportion of the industry. I think that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said that there were 200 publications now signed up. Most of them are niche and very small. There is nothing wrong with them; they are doing a good job, and it was their choice to join, but I am afraid that the system has failed to persuade the vast majority of publications to go along with it.
The opposition of the vast majority of publications meant that the system had failed to deliver what was intended. It was my choice, when I was Secretary of State, not to implement section 40. We announced that the Government would not bring in the order required for the powers in section 40 to come into effect. Ever since then, it has been sitting on the statute book unused, and in its place we have a new system of self-regulation.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North kept talking about the need for independent regulation. Some may have criticisms of IPSO, but IPSO is an independent regulator. It is a self-regulator, and it is outside the statutory framework. There will be decisions taken by IPSO that I do not agree with, as there were by the Press Complaints Commission, and one will never be entirely satisfied, but as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury pointed out, IPSO has been considered quite carefully by an independent assessor, and was found to be independent and delivering the kind of principles in the editors’ code that it was set up to enforce.
Stephanie Peacock
It is curious that the Minister is critiquing the Opposition’s position. The Government might be in trouble on the vote in the main Chamber today, but we are not yet in government. I think I outlined quite clearly in my speech that we do not oppose the repeal of section 40, and we appreciate that it has not worked. I also acknowledge that the media landscape has significantly changed, and any future consideration of the challenges of the press should take into account advertising, misinformation and the real challenges for local news. As much as the Minister tempts me to go into more detail, I remind him that he is still in government.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am not sure that has cast any greater light on the Opposition’s position, but it was helpful to hear more from the hon. Lady about her position. At least we know where the SNP stands; the hon. Member for Aberdeen North made it absolutely plain that the SNP is happy to support our removing this pressure on newspapers to join a state-approved or recognised regulator, but only if we put in its place another mechanism that will put equal pressure on them, and that might prove more successful, as she said, in persuading them to join up to the recognised regulator. She and her party may accept the criticism of the existing position, but at least we understand that she still wants Government pressure on newspapers to join a state-recognised regulator. That is the principle we cannot support. I am afraid that in my view her amendment is no better than the existing system. It removes one point of leverage on the press, only to replace it with a yet unspecified alternative.
I do not think it is right that Government should be involved in regulation of the press; I think it is very dangerous. Even the rather convoluted and complicated mechanism of the royal charter still represents state involvement. That flies in the face of belief in the importance to democracy of the freedom of the press, which we on the Government side regard as paramount. I am therefore absolutely committed to supporting clause 50 and the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.
Kirsty Blackman
I will take this opportunity to apologise, as I might have said something wrong. I might not have, but I will apologise in case I did. It might not have been a legacy press regulator that made the Irn Bru comment; it might have been the Standards Commission for Scotland. Unfortunately, it was so long ago that I cannot find online who said it. My apologies if I did get it wrong. I thought I would try to make that clear as mud for the Committee.
Turning to the Minister’s points on regulation, I completely understand his discomfort with section 40. I feel that we are in ideologically different positions. It would be slightly better if the Prime Minister had less of a hand in appointing senior figures at the BBC. We do not want to see things like that happen. If the Government want the press to be entirely Government-regulation free, that is the key point of the BBC charter that I would look to change.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am very interested in that, because it has long been established that while the board of the BBC consists of some individuals who are independently appointed, the chair is a Government appointment and, of course, the BBC board member for Scotland is appointed with the approval of the Scottish Government. All the Administrations in the UK are involved in appointments to the board. The BBC is a state-owned and state-funded broadcaster, and therefore is in a completely different position from a free press.
Kirsty Blackman
I was trying to highlight the inconsistencies in the Minister’s position. He is now saying that the BBC is a different case and therefore needs to be regulated differently. That is fine, but I had not received that clarity from what he said before; he pretty much said he was uncomfortable with some things to do with the BBC charter because of the level of Government involvement. Now I understand that he rationalises that on the basis that the BBC is a different case because of its state funding. It is helpful to have that clarity.
A number of different words are being used in relation to the regulator. We have heard “independent regulator”, “state regulator” and “self-regulator”. It would be helpful to go back to the Leveson recommendations, which I understand were for an independent regulator—that is the way it was phrased. If the Minister and other Government Members are making the case that Impress is not an independent regulator but a state regulator, state-approved regulator or state-sanctioned regulator—all phrases that have been used here—then I am not sure that they can make the case that IPSO is an independent regulator, as well as saying it is a self-regulator. I am happy enough for them to suggest that IPSO is a self-regulator. That is fine, but I do not think it can claim the title of independent regulator. If the Government also believe that Impress cannot claim the title of independent regulator, I think there is a clear disparity in that position. The Government should be happy enough to say, “Neither of these are independent regulators, but we are happy with the self-regulation mechanism currently in place, and we are happy to continue with the self-regulation system.” If that is the Government position, that is absolutely fine, but painting Impress as a state regulator or painting IPSO as an as an independent regulator is wrong: IPSO is a self-regulator, and Impress is an independent regulator.
I understand the Minister’s concerns, but I do not necessarily agree with him. He summed up our position really well. We are concerned about the lack of recourse for the public, and about the current regulation system. We do not feel that it is strong enough. I understand the Minister’s position on media freedom, and his feeling that the Government should not intervene to set up even an independent regulator that would require newspapers to sign up to regulation.
I absolutely agree that things are a bit better than they were pre-Leveson. Things may tip over again. Should an issue like the phone hacking scandal emerge, or should members of the public be harassed or struggling as a result of newspaper attention, another inquiry should be set up to determine what an independent regulator should look like. A recommendation for an independent regulator is not enough; there must be clarity on how that should be set up, and that should take into account what has happened on section 40. If a properly constituted inquiry requires that an independent regulator be set up, that must be done with an awareness of the fact that Impress was not able to get national newspapers to sign up.
I appreciate that we have had a debate on amendment 41. I appreciate all the points of views from Members. It is important to discuss the issue, whether or not the repeal was in the manifesto of the Minister’s party. I will not push amendment 41 to a vote in this sitting, but I may do so on Report.
Sir John Whittingdale
I want to be clear: I am not criticising Impress. Impress is an independent regulator. It has a code of conduct that its members subscribe to. It adjudicates and carries out the function of a regulator, just as IPSO does. The only difference is that IPSO decided not to apply for recognition from the Press Recognition Panel, whereas Impress did apply and achieved that recognition. It is the principle that divides the two, not in any way their performance as regulators.
It is arguable—this has not been put to the test—that IPSO might qualify for recognition, if it chose to apply. In many ways, it is already compliant with the conditions. However, it decided that it did not wish to achieve recognition, so it remains outside the system. To be honest, that is why the system has failed: because the regulator that the vast majority of newspapers belong to decided that it simply could not apply, even though there was a good chance it might have been recognised. The carrot and stick in section 40 have clearly failed to provide the persuasion that the hon. Lady was looking for. I just want to be clear that I am not in any way suggesting that Impress is not a perfectly proper and independent regulator; it is the system that has failed.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 41.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51
Amendments of broadcasting legislation: UK’s withdrawal from EU
Sir John Whittingdale
The clause introduces schedule 12, which sets out minor and technical amendments to existing broadcasting legislation in relation to retained EU law. These are straightforward fixes to ensure that legislation does not become inoperable following the UK’s exit from the EU.
Part 1 of this schedule removes references to the audiovisual media services directive from the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the Broadcasting Act 1996. Part 2 of schedule 12 amends part 4A of the Communications Act 2003 to remove references to the European Commission, obligations under the audiovisual media services directive, and to other European legislation.
Stephanie Peacock
It is important that our legislation addresses issues of retained EU law. As such, I have no particular issues with the contents of the clause or with schedule 12.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
New Clause 1
Delivery of public service content on relevant television services
“After section 264A of the Communications Act 2003, insert—
“264B Delivery of public service content on relevant television services
(1) Ofcom must monitor the extent to which the public service remit for television in the United Kingdom is met in respect of relevant television services.
(2) If Ofcom considers that the public service remit for television in the United Kingdom is not being met in respect of such services, it may set whatever programming quotas it considers necessary to ensure that the remit is met.
(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘relevant television services’ means—
(a) the television broadcasting services provided by the BBC;
(b) the television programme services that are public services of the Welsh Authority (within the meaning of section 207);
(c) every Channel 3 service;
(d) Channel 4;
(e) Channel 5.””—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This new clause would give Ofcom powers to measure the delivery of public service content on the linear services of the public service broadcasters, and set quotas if it considered the current level to be unsatisfactory.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am very pleased to speak to this new clause. As the shadow Secretary of State outlined in her speech on Second Reading, the Bill is welcome but misses the opportunity to consider how we can secure the future of UK public service media for school-age children. The issue was brought to my attention by the Children’s Media Foundation, which I have been pleased to meet more than once. It has done a huge amount of work on understanding patterns of media consumption by children, and how those patterns might impact their chances of viewing public service media. I place on record an explicit thank you to the foundation for that work, and I hope that it will be picked up further as a result of the new clause.
If we all agree that public service content is important for adults, as I believe we have done time and again throughout the Bill’s passage, I think we can agree that it is equally, if not more important for children. Certainly, the kind of high-quality public service content that our public service broadcasters can provide for children has powerful potential and has, for the last 75 years, been the envy of the world. It can promote wellbeing, give children an understanding of where they live, teach them British values of tolerance, provide entertaining forms of education that supplement their learning at school, and show a diverse range of role models. Ultimately, public service media can encourage children to value culture and crave knowledge—valuable characteristics for citizens to have when they come of age.
However, due to several connecting factors, this sort of content is under threat. As technology has rapidly evolved, the children’s content landscape has fundamentally changed forever. Children as young as toddlers have access to new devices and platforms. They can navigate apps on tablets and choose content that they would like to watch. That gives them access not only to video on demand services such as Netflix and Disney+, but to platforms such as YouTube and TikTok. The popularity of these forms of content are such that Ofcom estimates that less than half of 3 to 17-year-olds now watch live television. Similarly, there are potentially 9 million school-age viewers, but the top-rated programme on CBBC in any one week may have as few as 50,000 viewers, and similar numbers will request that programme on iPlayer. That number is a fraction of what we would hope it to be, given the importance of children’s public service content, which has been outlined.
As well as declining viewership, there has arguably been a decline in the amount of children’s content produced that could genuinely be considered to be public service. When there are budget constraints, UK-focused dramas or documentaries that reflect the unique lives and concerns of British children are often the first to go. The volume of first-run, UK-originated children’s programming on PSB channels dropped to its lowest level in 2022; it was down to 518 hours, compared to 640 hours in 2019. Furthermore, producers can save money by localising animated and puppet shows; what might initially appear to be a British programme with wider societal value may in fact be an international production, with personalised snippets to attract a bigger pool of funders.
It is not that the industry is unaware of the problems surrounding children’s public service content. Certainly in 2022, when the Government brought the young audiences content fund to an end, more than 750 creatives and executives from the UK children’s content industry signed an open letter, and campaigned to extend the fund for another three years. The likes of Channel 5 and Paramount are also working hard to keep up their Milkshake! offering. They are increasing their spend on children’s programming year on year, just to keep provision at the same level, but where there is a need to meet commercial demands, valuable children’s content will inevitably continue to suffer.
There is almost nothing in the Bill to show that this combination of concerning trends—declining viewership alongside declining content quality—has been identified, and there are no meaningful measures to stop the problem escalating. Children’s content is included in the new simplified remit in the very first clause, but that does little to increase accountability or individual channels’ contribution to creating children’s public service content, or to recognise changing trends in how children consume their media.
It is for all those reasons that the Children’s Media Foundation argued that we must urgently accept that children’s public service media are under threat and rethink how we can best protect them as part of the passage of the Bill. As a result, I propose that the Government conduct a review to better understand how we can secure children’s content long into the future.
Such a review would be an opportunity to ask bigger questions than the Bill currently allows for. For example, do we need to go to where the children are and broaden our concept of public service media for children, encouraging and promoting such content on the likes of Netflix, YouTube and TikTok? Do we need to learn the lessons from the ambition of the Online Safety Act 2023 and consider how algorithms serve content to young people, perhaps adjusting them to ensure that they promote diversity of thought rather than simply more of the same? Should we set targets for PSBs to hit a number of hours consumed rather than a number of hours produced when it comes to public service media for children?
I do not claim to have the answers to all these sorts of questions, but I do believe that they need to be explored. The UK must address the reality of the matter and accept that a new approach will be needed if we are to ensure that valuable content reaches the eyes and ears of young people across the country. I hope that is something that the Minister can acknowledge and I look forward to hearing his response.
Kirsty Blackman
Specifically on this issue, I agree with the points made by the shadow Minister. I think that asking for a report into this issue is the most sensible way forward, rather than saying that we have got all the answers. Looking at this issue in the whole would be very important.
When my children were younger, we relied a lot on CBeebies; the kids spent a lot of time watching CBeebies rather than anything else. Now that they are a bit bigger, they have forayed into the world of YouTube; when we are considering content on these platforms, at least with CBeebies parents know for certain that there will be no swearing and nothing inappropriate on that channel. Not everything on it is necessarily educational, but it is all funny or good, whereas on YouTube there is an absolute load of nonsense at times, and there are a number of shows on Netflix or Disney+ about which I have had to say to my daughter, “No, you can’t watch that. It’s just nonsense.”
There is value in ensuring that children have access, and easy access, to appropriate content and in encouraging parents to ensure that their children are—well, having gone through the Online Safety Bill, I know that we need to ensure that parents are aware of what their children are consuming on the internet and aware of what they are watching, and that they are taking decisions to manage that content and to ensure that children have good access to it. If the public service broadcasters’ shows for children are more easily accessible, parents will have fewer issues in ensuring that those are the shows that their children see.
Lastly, I will give a wee plug for “Newsround”, which a significant number of schools show in school. It is incredibly important and a really key way in which children are able to access news content in an age-appropriate way that explains the background and the information that they are being provided with. Therefore, I agree entirely with the shadow Minister that it would be sensible to have a report on this issue, and that a watching brief definitely needs to be kept on it.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Just to add to those points and those made by the shadow Minister, I have often relied on the third parent that is CBeebies, as I imagine many other Members and many of our constituents have as well. I want to talk about the quality of such television and about its educational impact on children, ranging from young children to teenagers.
As has been alluded to, the quality of the BBC’s programmes, particularly on CBeebies, is just a trusted fact. I know as a parent that I could quite happily leave my three-year-old in front of CBeebies. She does not love Peter Rabbit, but I know that it is a safe and secure watch for her. I know that there will be no inappropriate advertising or any inappropriate life lessons or swearing, which I cannot guarantee on other services or channels. There are brilliant CBeebies programmes and characters, such as Mr Tumble, “Bluey”, “Newsround”, which has already been mentioned, and “Dog Squad”, which is a new firm favourite.
As the shadow Minister said, most children now know their way around an iPad, a tablet, a computer or a phone like the back of their hand, and they access all this content in a way that we could not when we were younger, including through Netflix or YouTube. That is a particular concern, because the adverts on YouTube and other online streaming platforms are not always age appropriate. Particularly during the cost of living crisis and in the run-up to Christmas, that is another burden for parents to deal with. It is a huge annoyance that there is this reliance on advertising, and sometimes product placement, which is not always healthy for children, in movies and TV shows.
On the educational impact, I have concerns about how young children watch these programmes. There will need to be access to repeated viewings for the educational impact to be fully felt when it comes to things such as GCSE “Bitesize” or learning letters. One episode of “Yakka Dee!” or “Sesame Street” will not teach my child the entire alphabet. With that in mind, it is important that we have a review of the impact on young people to protect the quality and standards of children’s television.
Sir John Whittingdale
I suspect that the entire Committee agrees that it is important that children have access to public service broadcast content. The educational value of children’s television is hugely important, and it is indispensable for happy parenthood. It is for that reason that proposed new subsection 264(5)(c) of the Communications Act 2003 puts children’s television front and centre of the public service broadcasting regime. That will ensure that the public service remit can be fulfilled only by the public service broadcasters collectively producing a wide range of children’s content, including original content that reflects the lives and concerns of children and young people in the UK, and helps them to understand the world around them. The inclusion of children’s content as part of the remit will ensure that the needs of children feature prominently in Ofcom’s regular reporting. That will also complement its strengthened powers in respect of under-served content areas.
Although the provision of public service children’s programming is key, children—and especially older children—do of course watch other kinds of public service content as well, whether with their parents or on their own. As the hon. Member for Luton North set out, children access public service content via a wide range of devices. The Government agree that internet access and streaming services have fundamentally changed how audiences access TV, and that certainly applies to younger audiences, perhaps even more so than for any other group. On online advertising, I have recently been chairing a separate initiative—the online advertising taskforce—whose purpose is to ensure that online advertising does not advertise illegal products, and that children do not see advertising of inappropriate products.
The Bill tries to create flexibility by allowing our PSBs to deliver their remits across a wider range of services, including in new on-demand and short formats. We have made it clear that our PSBs must serve all audiences, and that extends not just to the content they make, but to how they choose to distribute it. These changes will ensure that our public service remit stays relevant and continues to reflect how audiences, including children and young people, are accessing PSB content.
We have to remember that PSB content has to be funded. All speakers paid tribute to the BBC’s output in this area, including CBBC and CBeebies, which are a core part of its output. Of course, the BBC receives public funding and is required under the charter to deliver content of that kind. It is more challenging for commercial television, as those broadcasters are dependent on advertising funding. I merely observe that the more we impose restrictions on what can be advertised to children, the more there is a detrimental impact on the amount of revenue gain by commercial broadcasters, which will influence their decisions about how much they invest in children’s programming.
That was one of the reasons why we previously established the young audiences content fund, which was designed to address the fact that almost all the children’s content was being produced by the BBC. The fund was there to support the commissioning of children’s content on other channels, and it proved very successful. It was a three-year pilot, but the Government continue to remain committed to the principle. I hope that, one day, it might be possible to resurrect something of that kind.
Stephanie Peacock
If it was a successful pilot, why did the Government not continue it?
Sir John Whittingdale
It was a successful pilot funded by the BBC, because it was licence-fee funded. Personally, I would have liked it to continue, but the BBC obviously was under financial pressure and put up a strong case that it could not continue to fund it. The principle that it was seeking to address remains an important one, and the Government have tried to provide alternative support, through things such as tax relief, for the production of children’s content. I share the hon. Lady’s sadness that it was brought to an end after three years, but it was always intended to be a pilot, and viewers will still be able to see content produced by the fund for some years to come.
Kirsty Blackman
On a point of order, Mr Vickers. I have to leave for a very important meeting, and I know that a number of new clauses in my name are coming up. I want to advise the Chair that I have to leave and am happy for those new clauses not to be pushed to a vote in Committee. Hopefully, making this point of order will mean that the sitting can end slightly earlier.
Sir John Whittingdale
I hope that the sitting can end very soon in any case; I think we have pretty much concluded the debate, and the remaining clauses are relatively technical.
I think the best people to conduct the review that the hon. Member for Barnsley East has called for are Ofcom. Ofcom has given a commitment in its planning work to take an in-depth look at how the market is best serving the interests of children, which I think will give us the insight that she wants. For that reason, I do not think her new clause is necessary.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate the Minister’s point about it being harder for commercial stations than it perhaps is for the BBC—of course, I made a point of praising Channel 5 and Paramount in my comments. I asked a number of quite broad questions about children’s television. I hope that Ofcom will consider them, but I am not sure that the Bill mandates it to do that. For those reasons, I would like to push the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Sir John Whittingdale
I do not intend to detain the Committee at great length. Clause 52 gives the Secretary of State a regulation-making power to make amendments to other existing legislation, which is needed as a result of changes contained in the Bill. If the proposed changes are to other primary legislation, the regulations will be subject to debate in both Houses. If the proposed changes are to secondary legislation, the regulations will be subject to the negative procedure.
Clause 53 authorises expenditure from the Bill. It covers the possibility that increased spending by Ofcom might require the payment of grants to incur or meet liabilities in respect of capital and revenue expenditure, or the possibility that the Secretary of State makes a grant to S4C.
Clause 54 sets out the Bill’s territorial extent. The Bill will extend and apply to the United Kingdom, except for the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which will extend and apply to England and Wales.
Clause 55 provides for the commencement of the provisions in the Bill. The majority of the provisions will be brought into force by regulations made by the Secretary of State. The provisions that come into force on the day on which this Bill is passed will be the regulation-making powers in relation to the prominence of television selection services and the general provisions in the Bill, such as the clauses dealing with the power to make consequential provisions, financial provision, extent, commencement, and the title of the Bill. Clause 50, which repeals section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, will come into force two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The rest of the Bill will come into force when the Secretary of State decides.
Finally, clause 56 establishes the short title of this legislation, which, when enacted, will be the Media Act 2024. I commend clauses 52 to 56 to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
I am pleased to have reached the final stages of our Committee. I have no issue with the clauses in this group. Perhaps I could seek your guidance, Mr Vickers, on whether it would be appropriate to say a few words in conclusion, or perhaps on a point of order.
The Chair
There will be an opportunity later.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 53 to 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Stephanie Peacock
I would like to make some concluding remarks. Overall, the Media Bill is a piece of legislation that we very much look forward to seeing on the statute book as soon as possible, and I hope there is no further delay in its passage. There are, of course, some areas where I would have liked further progress, but I am really pleased to have welcomed through many of the measures, from the prominence regime to the establishment of the first video-on-demand code and rights.
I conclude by putting some thank yous on the record. I thank the Chairs, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South, the Clerks of the Committee and all members of the Committee. It is particularly worth noting the work done before the Bill was introduced, by the CMS Committee and all the stakeholders, and in particular by Anna Clingan from my office, who has worked incredibly hard on all the speeches. I look forward to continuing the process of scrutiny on the Floor of the House, probably after Christmas.
Sir John Whittingdale
I join the hon. Lady in expressing my thanks. This is a very important Bill that has been in the making for a long time. There has been a lot of support for its provisions from right across the media sector. The fact that the Committee has spent just three days debating it in no way suggests that it is not an essential and important piece of legislation; instead, I think it shows that there is remarkable agreement across the Committee. While we may differ on specific detail in general—even on the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act—it appears that there is pretty much cross-party agreement. I hope that that will continue when the Bill moves up to the other place.
I wish to thank all the members of the Committee for their contributions and support. I thank you, Mr Vickers, and the hon. Member for Bradford South for chairing so effectively. I thank the Clerks for doing an excellent job in preparing the amendments and keeping the whole thing on schedule. I also thank my officials in the Department, who have been working on this Bill for quite a long time. It is a great tribute to them that we have managed to get it through this part of its passage through Parliament so smoothly.
With that, I thank the Committee once again, and wish everyone a happy Christmas.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.